# More History Before 1967



## georgephillip (Jun 23, 2013)

"The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"

"Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, allegations began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers.[18] 

"Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions followed."

How did the French reward their loyal Jewish Spartans?
Here's one possibility offered by a veteran of Israel's War of Independence:

"The French were struggling with the Algerian war for independence and believed that their real enemy was the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. They got Israel to spearhead an attack to topple him. It was a complete failure.

"In my opinion, the war was a political disaster for Israel. 

"*It dug the abyss separating our new state from the Arab world.* 

"But the French showed their gratitude  they rewarded Peres with the atomic reactor in Dimona."

When the Gods Laugh » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Lipush (Jun 23, 2013)

More history before 1967.

Like the history in 1929, hypocrite anti-zionists?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 23, 2013)

Lipush said:


> More history before 1967.
> 
> Like the history in 1929, hypocrite anti-zionists?


*Blame the Greedy Zionists (again)*

"The 1929 Palestine riots, also known as the Western Wall Uprising, the 1929 Massacres, (Hebrew: &#1502;&#1488;&#1493;&#1512;&#1506;&#1493;&#1514; &#1514;&#1512;&#1508;"&#1496;, Meora'ot Tarpat, lit. 

"Events of 5689 Anno Mundi), or the Buraq Uprising (Arabic: &#1579;&#1608;&#1585;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1576;&#1585;&#1575;&#1602;*), refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. 

"The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. 

"During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured, while 110 Arabs were killed by British police and 232 were injured while the British were trying to suppress the riots.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

"The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence 'without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future.'[10] 

"Avraham Sela described the riots as 'unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, in duration, geographical scope and direct damage to life and property.'"

Would you agree the '29 riots were "unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine..?

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 23, 2013)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > More history before 1967.
> ...



Oh Georgie, you're always justifying violence perpetrated by the Palestinian Arabs ..


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 23, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


*Israel's sincere flattery of Russia:*

"The fight over the canal also laid the groundwork for the Six Day War in 1967 due to the lack of a peace settlement following the 1956 war.[299] The failure of the Anglo-French mission was also seen as a failure for the United States, since the western alliance had been weakened and the military response had ultimately achieved nothing. 

"The Soviets got away with their violent suppression of the rebellion in Hungary, and were able to pose at the United Nations as a defender of small powers against imperialism..."

"The Soviet Union made major gains with regards to influence in the Middle East.[301] The American historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote about the aftermath of the crisis:

"'When the British-French-Israeli invasion forced them to choose, Eisenhower and Dulles came down, with instant decisiveness, on the side of the Egyptians. 

"'They preferred alignment with Arab nationalism, *even if it meant alienating pro-Israeli constituencies on the eve of a presidential election in the United States*, even if it meant throwing the NATO alliance into its most divisive crisis yet, even if it meant risking whatever was left of the Anglo-American 'special relationship', even if it meant voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council at a time when the Russians, themselves, were invading Hungary and crushing&#8212;far more brutally than anything that happened in Egypt&#8212;a rebellion against their own authority there.'"

Suez Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## usmcstinger (Jun 23, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"
> 
> "Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, allegations began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers.[18]
> 
> ...



Sounds more like rewriting History Before 1967. Typical left wing bull shit.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"
> ...



Re-writing history is something Palestinians and their supporters thrive at ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Like they rewrote those armistice agreements.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

lol


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

Yeah, like the terrorism committed by right-wing Zionists before 1949.

And the expulsion of Arabs from Israel after Israel was founded and won the war.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

You mean the same Arabs who's so called Government took part in the effort to 'drive the Jews to the sea' and commit another genocide of the Jews, a mere 4 years after the Holocaust ended???


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> You mean the same Arabs who's so called Government took part in the effort to 'drive the Jews to the sea' and commit another genocide of the Jews, a mere 4 years after the Holocaust ended???



UN Resolution 181 gave 65% of the population (the Muslims and Christians) only 40% of the land.

That wasn't fair and the Arabs had a right to fight to defend their interests.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Ok, if you want to put it that way. But the fact of the matter is , the Arabs lost the war, and were humiliated by a rag tag Jewish Army.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Ok, if you want to put it that way. But the fact of the matter is , the Arabs lost the war, and were humiliated by a rag tag Jewish Army.



The Jews had twice as many soldiers as the Arabs, and were armed with modern day fighter planes, tanks, and other weaponry.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Actually, the Arabs had a MUCH larger army, but only sent a fraction of them for combat. 
Not to mention it was SIX, that's right, SIX Arab armies against one Jewish army. 
Wow, such a fair fight !


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Actually, the Arabs had a MUCH larger army, but only sent a fraction of them for combat.
> Not to mention it was SIX, that's right, SIX Arab armies against one Jewish army.
> Wow, such a fair fight !



who said war was supposed to be fair?


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Nobody. I'm just stating facts concerning the 1948 Arab war and showing you that Arab stink at warfare


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Nobody. I'm just stating facts concerning the 1948 Arab war and showing you that Arab stink at warfare



Meanwhile Israel was desperate for America's help in 1967 and 1973.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 23, 2013)

The collusion of Britain, France, and Israel in the attempt to regain the Suez Canal is not controversial in academic circles; it is documented. It is neither history re-written, nor is it particularly anything to do with left wing sentiment. Some commentators opinions on the subject may be more or less factual, but the basic events are not in question.

As colonialism was going out of fashion by the '50s, Britain and France decided they needed a cover story for their mission to re-take the Suez Canal. They had a handy one in the form of the still smoldering feeling between Israel and Egypt. The story was to go like this: Israel would invade Egypt, driving up to the Suez Canal. Britain and France would then intervene, as peacekeepers. An altruistic mission of course, but, seeing as their military was now occupying the canal area, well.......what the heck. It didn't turn out that way, and for Israel it was no doubt a net loss, as it just helped fuel the animosity of an already troubled region.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody. I'm just stating facts concerning the 1948 Arab war and showing you that Arab stink at warfare
> ...



Can you blame them ? Look at the size of Israel compared to the countries of the other belligerents


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Can you blame them ? Look at the size of Israel compared to the countries of the other belligerents



what the hell does the geographic size of a country have to do with anything???????????

most of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, are uninhabited.

try bringing up relevant points.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Can you blame them ? Look at the size of Israel compared to the countries of the other belligerents
> ...



What you said is irrelevant . 
Israel was by far the underdog in both wars, yet they won both wars. 
America provided weaponry, not troops. 
To the victor go the spoils


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> What you said is irrelevant .
> Israel was by far the underdog in both wars, yet they won both wars.
> America provided weaponry, not troops.
> To the victor go the spoils



To the victor goes the spoils.

So we should have let Germany keep Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland?


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > What you said is irrelevant .
> ...



Germany won nothing


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Germany won nothing



You don't get it.

Israel doesn't have to give up the West Bank.

But if they don't, and don't give the Palestinians full citizenship, they become a full Apartheid state.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

I'm a bit confused with this post. Care to elaborate ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Israel won nothing.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



Nothing except for a thriving country.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


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



Indeed, but they have yet to win any land.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, but they have yet to win any land.



what's your point?


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, but they have yet to win any land.
> ...



It is not over!


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



This is what I'm talking about, Palestinian supporters re-writing history.

Israel DID win land in 1948. After being attacked by the surrounding Arab armies, they expanded their territory. 

*Result 	Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[2] Armistice Agreements*

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes it is. The Arabs lost. Get over it


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 23, 2013)

usmcstinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"
> ...


Why do you suppose Ike choose to side with the Arabs at considerable political threat to his own reelection?

"When the British-French-Israeli invasion forced them to choose, Eisenhower and Dulles came down, with instant decisiveness, on the side of the Egyptians. 

"They preferred alignment with Arab nationalism, even if it meant alienating pro-Israeli constituencies on the eve of a presidential election in the United States, even if it meant throwing the NATO alliance into its most divisive crisis yet, even if it meant risking whatever was left of the Anglo-American 'special relationship', even if it meant voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council at a time when the *Russians, themselves, were invading Hungary and crushing*far more brutally than anything that happened in Egypta rebellion against their own authority there. 

"The fact that the Eisenhower administration itself applied crushing economic pressure to the British and French to disengage from Suez, and that it subsequently forced an Israeli pull-back from the Sinai as wellall of this, one might thought, would won the United States the lasting gratitude of Nasser, the Egyptians and the Arab world. 

"Instead, the Americans lost influence in the Middle East as a result of Suez, while the Russians gained it.[301]"

Suez Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Yes it is. The Arabs lost. Get over it



when Jews sue Germany for lost property, compensation for slave labor, or increase in Holocaust pensions, do you tell THEM to "get over it"?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 23, 2013)

Noam Chomsky (NC) was in Beirut lately where he had time for the following interview with journalist Maha Zaraket (MZ)

"MZ: After 9/11, the Americans asked, 'Why does the rest of the world hate us?' Is it possible for us to ask, why do the Americans hate us?

"NC: I think it is kind of interesting...because the question was asked a long time ago in 1958 when then-President Eisenhower asked his staff why is there a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world, and not from the governments which are supportive, but from the population.

"That same year, 1958, the National Security Council, the main planning body, came out with a document  *it has been in the public domain for four years*  in which they explained, they said that there is a perception in the Arab world that the US supports dictatorships and blocks democracy, and that we do it because we want to maintain control of their resources, their energy supplies. [The document said] this is what we ought to be doing, even though there will be a campaign of hatred against us.

"That was 1958, and if you think of that year, *that was right after Eisenhower had forced Britain, France, and Israel out of Egypt*, so you might expect that there would not be a campaign of hatred, but there was. And those were the perceived reasons and pretty much the right ones.

"After 9/11 George W. Bush, raised the question, why do they hate us? They hate our freedom and so on. *The Pentagon Research Bureau did come out with a study, and their conclusions were the same as the National Security Council in 1958.*

Noam Chomsky Interview: Sykes-Picot Is Failing | Al Akhbar English


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



Interesting, but an armistice was called by UN Security Council resolution.

Nobody won or lost the 1948 war.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Then let me ask you this.

How does one determine who wins or who loses a war ??
Should we not be looking at the goals of each belligerent and weather or weather not they were met during the war?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


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



OK, Israel's goal was all of Palestine without the Palestinians. Israel failed to meet that goal.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. No Palestinian land was lost to any of the waring parties.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Hahaha what ?? 
Israel's goal was survival. No one thought they would make it.
The goal of the Arabs was to "drive the Jews to the sea"

Israel survived AND gained territory in the process while fighting on THREE different fronts.

The Arabs did not succeed in driving the Jews to the sea AND lost territory. 

*Result: 	Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[2] Armistice Agreements*

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

Of course Israel won the 1948 war.

They acquired more land and got rid of 80% of their Arab population.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> Of course Israel won the 1948 war.
> 
> They acquired more land and got rid of 80% of their Arab population.



Nope, most of them left on their own.
LOL Palestinians are such sympathy seekers, they never admit they are responsible for anything.
OF COURSE the Palestinians are going to claim that IT was the Jews who evicted them all ! They would never have the dignity to admit that most of them left on their own or were asked/ordered to by their Arab neighbors


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Israeli propaganda. Not true.

Israel survived as an occupying power. No land was transferred to Israel.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Haha. So Wikpedia is Israeli propaganda ? YOu use it all thew time

But I guess when you have nothing left to argue and your back is to the wall, just blurt out the usual :"Israeli Propaganda!"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Haha. So Wikipedia is Israeli propaganda ? YOu use it all thew time
> 
> But I guess when you have nothing left to argue and your back is to the wall, just blurt out the usual :"Israeli Propaganda!"



Where in Wikipedia does it say that Israel owns that land. They song and dance the issue by using terms like "controlled."

If you look at the actual documents, no land was transferred to any of the occupying powers.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Haha. So Wikipedia is Israeli propaganda ? YOu use it all thew time
> ...



You're just deflecting again. This has nothing to do with land ownership. It has to do with a war, and Israel capturing territory in the process, which now lies in the Land of Israel  

The Arabs were completely shocked as was the rest of the world, and lost more soldiers in the process and 50% of the land proposed to them in the partition plan and did nothing to dismantle the newly created state which was their stated goal
Ya , they didn't lose the war


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land (Documentation) and where are the borders defining that land?

Why would they mention the partition plan? That plan never happened?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land (Documentation) and where are the borders defining that land?



The United Nations and the vast majority of the international community recognizes the 1949 armistice lines as Israel's legitimate and rightful borders.


----------



## 50_RiaL (Jun 23, 2013)

At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it
Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. 
This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the JEWS* deemed it intolerable 
that foreign races should be settled in THEIR* city and foreign religious rites planted there." 

-- From Roman History 69.12.1 by Roman senator and historian, Lucius Cassius Dio (164 - c.235).

Nowhere in his multivolumne, magnum opus does Dio Cassius mention the "Palestinians."  What gives?

* Emphasis mine.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

50_RiaL said:


> ...Nowhere in his multivolumne, magnum opus does Dio Cassius mention the "Palestinians."  What gives?
> 
> * Emphasis mine.



If you knew anything about the history of the Holy Land, you would know that after Rome defeated the Jews, they changed the name of Judaea to Palaestina.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land (Documentation) and where are the borders defining that land?
> ...



The UN map of Israel states:



> The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
> map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
> part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
> status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
> concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.



http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G1JLHubiQIjAz1lwyUoSECg&bvm=bv.48293060,d.dmQ

The UN map of Israel has a disclaimer on territory and borders.



> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



Israel is always defined by fake borders because it has no real borders.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



There's no such thing as fake borders.

*The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip*

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

You keep saying that, but that is not the case.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land (Documentation) and where are the borders defining that land?
> 
> Why would they mention the partition plan? That plan never happened?


*(COMMENT)*

I see you speak for the Palestinian side. So your position is overrides the official Palestinian position.



			
				Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:
			
		

> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> (Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
> Ambassador
> ...



More fragmentation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## 50_RiaL (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> > ...Nowhere in his multivolumne, magnum opus does Dio Cassius mention the "Palestinians."  What gives?
> ...



Name goes even further than that, bud.  

Does precede Israel, though.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



Interesting, there is an Israeli border between Egypt and Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



There's no mention of Palestine there.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> There's no mention of Palestine there.



The land has been known as "Palestine" for more than 1,500 years.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > There's no mention of Palestine there.
> ...



Except I was talking about 1979. try to keep up


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman; P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

All maps have the same notice when published by the Secretariat. 



toastman said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The Secretariat is not the proponent.  PF Tinmore misrepresents the meaning of that disclaimer notice all the time; just as he misrepresents the original status of GA Res 181(II).  It is a standard position he takes to in order to promote an alternative history.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


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



There was.

They are trying to back door borders for Israel. The only way Israel can acquire any Palestinian land or borders is an agreement with the Palestinians.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

You've made that claim before, but never provide information proving it. Where does it say the Palestinians had to have ceded land to Israel for the borders of Israel to be legitimate ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_

Today, the existing treaties and armistice mark the borders.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

No authority gave the Palestinians any control, administrative or otherwise, over any territory.  The control went from the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers/LoN.  There was never a point that the Palestinians had any control over any of the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> toastman; P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> All maps have the same notice when published by the Secretariat.



Examples?



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



Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.



UN SC res 181 is the basis for the UN recognition of the state of israel.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



He is trying to say that you continuously distort the Resolution, he never said it was implemented


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_
> 
> Today, the existing treaties and armistice mark the borders.
> 
> ...



So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?



Jordan gave their rights to negotiate over the West Bank, to the PLO.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?
> ...



Jordan never had the right to negotiate the West Bank.


----------



## toastman (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Then who did ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman; P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Let's see.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.


*(COMMENT)*

Was it accepted as legitimate by proper Palestinian Authority?  Yes

Was it used as the packet to get admission into the UN?  Yes

Was it accepted by the Israelis?  Yes



			
				F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS said:
			
		

> When the independence of *either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine



You'll notice that the resolution say "or" and not both.  And this nonsense about requiring US Security Council approval or action, is just as incredible.  Non-binding resolutions do not require UNSC action when it is an offer and acceptance resolution, which this is.  Both sides could accept, and both sides could reject (non-binding).



			
				273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
			
		

> Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> 
> ...



You will notice that the Resolution 181 (II) Future government of Palestine of 29 November 1947 was noted as "implemented."

*(QUESTION)*

The question is, why do you deny it in the face such documentary evidence? 

I suspect because it is a piece of inconvenient history.  Together with the Map Annex, and the narrative of the borders, your argument is lost.

However, relative to today, only the treaties with the adjacent countries are relevant.  None of the historical documents gives the Palestinians any control or any borders.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



Remember, Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not because it was occupied Palestinian land. Jordan even set up a phoney council in the West Bank so that "the Palestinians" would cede the land to Jordan. That did not work out for them either.

Neither Egypt nor Israel attempted to annex the land they occupied in the 1948 war.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> toastman; P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> ...



And Palestine is recognized by the UN as a non member *state*.

What does UN recognition mean.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_

Hummm.   Is this a trick question?



P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?


*(COMMENT)*

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel.  Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts.  As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel.  These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?  That is only one option.  As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_
> 
> Hummm.   Is this a trick question?
> 
> ...





> Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.



When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Did you read it?



P F Tinmore said:


> And Palestine is recognized by the UN as a non member *state*.
> 
> What does UN recognition mean.


*(COMMENT)*

I recommend you read it.



			
				EXCERPTS A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 said:
			
		

> Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
> 
> Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,
> 
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Did you read it?
> 
> ...



Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, you have to understand the steps.



P F Tinmore said:


> When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?


*(COMMENT)*

It was not annex.  It was declared independent under the right of self-determination.  The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.



P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.
> 
> Who wrote this crap.


*(COMMENT)*

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender.  The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor.  It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap."  But it is a reality.  Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory.  But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian.  They are simply too much trouble.  However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians.  Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt.  Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ.  And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah.  The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, you have to understand the steps.
> 
> ...



So you are saying that the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country and that was a defensive war.

You don't make any sense.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_
> 
> Hummm.   Is this a trick question?
> 
> ...


Rocco...even if your allegation of Hot Pursuit of invading enemy forces conformed to Reality, wouldn't it still be illegal for Israel to fill the West Bank with its civilian population?

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip, _et al,_

I think that would be correct.



georgephillip said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, a _prima facie_ case can be made.  _(The GCIV is Humanitarian Law and not Criminal Law.  It depends on the nature of the allegation.)_



			
				Para 2b (viii) said:
			
		

> The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court



But that doesn't mean it was wrong.  Israel is entitled to present a defense as to "why" it was necessary to pursue that course of action.

There could be several reasons _(lines of defense)_ that would allow a court to decide in Israeli favor.  Possibilities might include:


It may have been necessary to strategically place non-hostile populations on certain ground to improve security against insurgent action.

It may have been considered War reparations payments intended to cover damage and injury inflicted by Hostile Arab/Palestinians during a war.

I cannot speak for the Israelis, but I'm sure that they have a case to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



No, you said that.
The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Remember, Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not because it was occupied Palestinian land. Jordan even set up a phoney council in the West Bank so that "the Palestinians" would cede the land to Jordan. That did not work out for them either.
> 
> Neither Egypt nor Israel attempted to annex the land they occupied in the 1948 war.



Jordan did annex the WB.  It was illegal but they still did it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The Zionist's stated goal was to take over the country.

So no, they said that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip, _et al,_
> 
> I think that would be correct.
> 
> ...



They do.

It is called stealing more land.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> No, you said that.
> The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land



And then the British significantly reduced Jewish immigration to Palestine using the White Paper, because the natives of Palestine didn't like the idea of their land being a colony for foreign refugees.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No, you said that.
> ...



Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason



well, they ran the mandate, and they were supposed to comply with the mandate.

restricting jewish immigration to Palestine violated the mandate.

...........and ensured the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason
> ...



The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews ?? What ?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews ?? What ?



The White Paper seriously limited Jewish immigration to Palestine just as millions of Jews were facing the Nazi terror.

Wouldn't it have been nice if as an act of kindness and Christian love, the British allowed in 500,000 European Jews to save them from Auschwitz?


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Yes, but I certainly don't blame the British for the deaths


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Yes, but I certainly don't blame the British for the deaths



By 1944, the British and Americans knew exactly what was happening to the Jews of Europe:  they were becoming extinct.

And yet, the British kept their 10,000 Jews a year immigration limit for Palestine.

The British, by one stroke of a pen, could have saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from certain death.

They chose not to.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Since when do you give a hoot about Jews though ?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

The British were very aware of how the White Paper restrictions were a death sentence to hundreds of thousands of Jews.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

it was also the British who recognized the historical right of the Jews to immigrate to the Mandatory Palestine as well as their need to move their to resolve the 'Jewish Question'


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> it was also the British who recognized the historical right of the Jews to immigrate to the Mandatory Palestine as well as their need to move their to resolve the 'Jewish Question'



but then they caved due to pressure from the Arabs.

The Arabs wanted to maintain their majority in Palestine.

The Jews wanted to not be annihilated.  The British decides to favor the Arabs.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You keep asserting that the "Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country;" as if there was some established Palestinian Sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine.  The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 _(and then only tentatively)_.  On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty.  Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).  

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory.  _[This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.]_  The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947).  The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple.  The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war.  And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.



			
				San Remo Agreement said:
			
		

> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The San Remo agreement 1920



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jun 24, 2013)

The  San Remo Mandate stands and always will.  Countries have a duty therefore to encourage Jewish settlement in all the land and consequently settlement building for the Jewish people in the West Bank is absolutely and totally legal.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> You keep asserting that the "Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country;" as if there was some established Palestinian Sovereignty.



What a racist, colonialist attitude. To think that foreigners have the right to Palestine and the native Palestinians do not.

All you have is the foreigners did this, and the foreigners said that, and the foreigners agreed to...blah, blah, blah...

And to think that external interference was illegal.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> The  San Remo Mandate stands and always will....



False.

Wrong.

Untrue.

The goals and agenda of the Palestine Mandate are over.  They are finished.  Its expired.

However, if the Mandate is still in affect, then Israel has seriously VIOLATED this mandate by persecuting and restricting the lives of the Gentile population in the West Bank.

Remember, Jewish settlement in Palestine is contingent upon the Gentile population being treated with respect and equality.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.
> 
> I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.


Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.
> ...



Liar, I already disproved that several times. Stop living in the past Georgie boy. 
It is 2013 and Israel is here , weather you like it or not. 
The question is, when will you stop bitching about this ?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.
> ...



No problem:

1.  The source of the above claim is you.
2.  You have no credibility.

That was easy.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.

Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.

The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.
> 
> Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.
> 
> The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.



I remember a simple time from my youth when Nakba Day was pure.

Why, we'd be sitting in front of the fireplace... when we'd hear the sound of Nakba day carollers singing their melodies of hate and lies.  There was "Terrorists are Coming to Town," "Jihad Bells," and everyone's favorite, "I saw Mommy killing Santa Claus."

Then we'd have our Nakba Day feast before we'd hurry off to sleep, all snug in our beds, with visions of suicide bombers dancing in our heads.

Now, of course, Nakba Day has become too commercial.  But I remember...


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

The Jews have their Shoah.  The Palestinians have their Nakba.

Both events were tragic and the pain remains today.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> The Jews have their Shoah.



6 million Jews murdered.



> The Palestinians have their Nakba.



Arabs try to prevent the formation of the Jewish State and get their asses kicked.



> Both events were tragic and the pain remains today.



Yeah... the're exactly the same thing.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.



stole their bank accounts?

got any evidence for this?


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.
> 
> Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.
> 
> The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.



What you are referring to is called military advancement. Again, the Arab states are the ones who invaded tiny little Israel with the goal of 'driving the Jews to the Sea', not the other way around. This is an important documented fact that you never point out. 
Had the Jews remained in the land that they claimed as The Land as Israel without advancing and gaining more territory, I have no doubt that another Holocaust would have taken place.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine.  The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 _(and then only tentatively)_.  On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty.  Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).
> 
> ...



Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count. Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.

The Balfour Declaration was simply a rather desperate attempt of the British, then at a crisis point in WW1, to enlist the support of anyone and everyone that might be of the slightest value to them. They made similar promises to the Arabs.

As for who were being defensive, and who were being children, the truth is a little more mixed. Violence reached a high point in 1948, as Jewish settlers realized they were going to need more land to make a viable state. The UN plan would have made for almost indefensible borders, and so in the turmoil, an opportuntiy presented itself: chuck out as many Arabs as possible, and have some "facts on the ground" at independence. And they did, a fact no longer in dispute by even leading Israeli academics.

The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> What you are referring to is called military advancement....



Hitler and Milosevic said the same thing.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, of course.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What "external interference?"  The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman (non-foreigner) to the Allied Powers.

Remember, had the not been an Arab Uprising, "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," were protected by both the agreement with the HRH King Faisal _(specifically with the Jews)_ and the San Remo Convention _(among the International Community members with the concurrence of the Allied Powers)_.  

Also remember, the protection against the unnecessary "external interference" was a concept written by the same body you call the "foreigners" and "external interference."  Oddly enough, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition turned-out to be the "external interference" that opened the 1948 War, the '67 War and the sneak attack of 1973.

The Arab wanted what they could not have.  If one looks at the Map, you'll see the Arab got from mandates, protectorates, and trusteeships:  Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.  What they didn't get was Israel, the little sliver on the Mediterranean.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Auteur said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine.  The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 _(and then only tentatively)_.  On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.
> ...



The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement



you also stated that ethnic cleansing is part of "military advancement".


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Which you like me to bring up the Arab atrocities as well ?
Ethic cleansing is just part of the Arab propaganda campaign. 
It was the ARABS who threatened to cleanse the Jews, but what they didn't realize was that the Jews weren't just going to stand still and take it.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Read all those quotes , which are documented. 

Here's my personal favorite:
*"&#8220;If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea&#8230; Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.&#8221;"*

So tell me, who attempted to do the 'cleansing' ?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Which you like me to bring up the Arab atrocities as well...



you're more than welcome to.

next we can talk about all the Arab villages destroyed in Israel after 1948.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Arab logic:

We're going to try to destroy you all and take all of your land.

_And if you fail?_

Then we'll demand everything that everything we lost in the process be returned to us.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel 

It's not the Zionists fault that the Arabs stink at warfare


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel
> 
> It's not the Zionists fault that the Arabs stink at warfare



no, the villages are gone.

wiped off the map.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence



Nobody forced the Jews to use the war as an excuse to ethnically cleanse Israel.

That was their racist decision.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.



The Arabs had a right to defend their people against an unfair partition of Palestine.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence
> ...



You do realize that there are Arabs living in Israel to this day, don't you?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.



Nobody forced Israel to kick out 80% of their Arab population.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.
> ...



They did?

I thought you and your fellow pro-"Palestinians" were fans of international law and the upholding of the decisions of the UN.

The UN decided to partition the land.  The Arabs rejected this decision and chose LAWLESSNESS.  

But her's the problem with lawlessness - the outcome is uncertain.  In this case, they didn't much like the outcome.  Too bad.

You probably think that football teams, facing a 4th and 1 at the opposing team's 25 yard line should have the option to go for it and, if the defense stops them, change their mind and kick the field goal.

The world doesn't work that way.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free



big deal.

Jews also serve in the Iranian Parliament.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free
> ...



Not that its relevant, but since you brought it up, the Jewish population has dropped from over 100,000 in 1948, to approximately 80,000 before the Revolution, to less than 10,000 today.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


*I'll make it easier.*

True or False:

In 1948 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived between the River and the sea?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

Auteur,  _et al,_

I would by this, if I had heard, even once, of the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) or the Arab League (AL) coalition raising their voice and calling for peace.  What they call for is the surrender of Israel.  Experience has shown us that when the HoAP and AL coalition ask for the impossible or unrealistic, they really are just making a show for the audience; with no real intention for peace.



Auteur said:


> Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count.


*(COMMENT)* 

Ah, but they did count.  And again, their rights (civil and religious) were being protected.  But they turned to bite the hand.

Just because you want a thing, doesn't mean you can have a thing.  I want a Million Dollars.  I've work all my life for it.  But it doesn't mean I'm going to get it.  Sometimes life isn't fair.  



Auteur said:


> Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.


*(COMMENT)*

We were not "awarded" independence like some carnival prize.  Our founders exercised their right of self-determination and took independence. 

The US sent a Declaration of Independence, and then fought a war of independence.  There was even a second confrontation (War of 1812) when our Capitol was burned by the British.



Auteur said:


> The Balfour Declaration was simply a rather desperate attempt of the British, then at a crisis point in WW1, to enlist the support of anyone and everyone that might be of the slightest value to them. They made similar promises to the Arabs.


*(COMMENT)*

The Bedouin and King Hussein fought on the side of the Allied Powers, but not the Arab/Palestinian.



Auteur said:


> for who were being defensive, and who were being children, the truth is a little more mixed. Violence reached a high point in 1948, as Jewish settlers realized they were going to need more land to make a viable state. The UN plan would have made for almost indefensible borders, and so in the turmoil, an opportuntiy presented itself: chuck out as many Arabs as possible, and have some "facts on the ground" at independence. And they did, a fact no longer in dispute by even leading Israeli academics.


*(COMMENT)*

The conflict between the HoAP/AL might be thought of as having commenced with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in the 1920's, and the Arab Black Hand.  The name may sound familiar to you as today's Hamas Brigade of the same name (al-Qassam) and the rockets being fired into Israel also take the same name.

The HoAP/AL didn't wait for any definitive action on the part of the Jewish Immigrant.  They immediately started with the option of war.



Auteur said:


> The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually it is.  It is an intentional alteration of history.  



			
				EXCERPT  Report by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1930 said:
			
		

> "On the 1st September, 1922, the Palestine Order in Council was issued, setting up a Government in Palestine under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Part 3 of the Order in Council directed the establishment of a Legislative Council to be composed of the High Commissioner as President, with 10 other official members, and 12 elected non-official members. The procedure for the selection of the non-official members was laid down in the Legislative Council Order in Council, 1922, and in February and March, 1923, an attempt was made to hold elections in accordance with that procedure.
> 
> "*The attempt failed owing to the refusal of the Arab population as a whole to co-operate* (a detailed report of these elections is contained in the papers relating to the elections for the Palestine Legislative Council, 1923, published as Command Paper 1889).
> 
> ...



It is important to note the mention of Arab Palestinian cooperation.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


*Do you agree with these numbers?
*
"Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. 

"*By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000  Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean*, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. 

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

We've had this argument plenty of times George. Why you keep bringing it up is beyond me


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> True or False:
> 
> In 1948 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived between the River and the sea?



Your implicit contention that this is the determinant factor is FALSE.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > True or False:
> ...


I never implied the ratio of Jew to Arab in 1948 Palestine was the determinant factor; that was your interpretation. Demographics is one contributing factor of a fundamental principle of international law stating nations are free to choose their sovereignty and political status without external compulsion or imperialistic interference, and that peremptory norm obviously didn't hold in Palestine since 650,000 Jews with the interference of the UN imposed their nation-state by force of arms on twice as many non-Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Remember, had the not been an Arab Uprising,...



Why was there an Arab uprising.

BTW, which Arabs are you talking about?


----------



## Auteur (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Auteur,  _et al,_
> 
> I would by this, if I had heard, even once, of the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) or the Arab League (AL) coalition raising their voice and calling for peace.  What they call for is the surrender of Israel.  Experience has shown us that when the HoAP and AL coalition ask for the impossible or unrealistic, they really are just making a show for the audience; with no real intention for peace.



The PA and the Arab League have both called for peace, and have adopted the peace plan proposed by Saudi Arabia a few years ago, one that reflects mainstream world opinion, and is very even handed to both sides. I have quoted both here in this section of the forum. There is nothing impossible or unrealistic here, although it is often portrayed as such in US media, which these days is unembarrassed on the question of bias.




RoccoR said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count.
> ...



Their rights are not being protected. Palestinians in the occupied territories are a subject people, and even those in Israel proper face some discrimination.

It's true that we can't always have what we want, but your implicit suggestion here is that  might makes right, and those with the most guns are the most right. This is a regressive way to look at the world, one that can only perpetuated conflict and hate. And this is exactly what we are seeing in the Middle East. Israel won- but there is no peace.



RoccoR said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.
> ...



OK. So those formerly thought of as British can now rebel against the established authority, and create a new paradigm, one in which they are no longer British, but Americans.

And Palestinians cannot follow this same chain of logic because....?



RoccoR said:


> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Bedouin and King Hussein fought on the side of the Allied Powers, but not the Arab/Palestinian.
> 
> ...



Your suggestion here is that intolerant Arabs simply decided they were going to kill Jews; they were extremists with no compromise.

I invite you to step back a moment, and consider the same situation occurring in your own state. Refugees pour into Ohio from Central America and Columbia. Things are pretty rough there, and they are looking for a safe haven. At first you would probably welcome them. When the numbers increased substantially, questions might be asked. When claims to the land, based on dubious historical claims, such as Spanish control of the Midwest a couple of centuries ago, things would probably go beyond questions. If numbers increased yet more, there would be friction, even violence. Ohio is your home, and although you'd like to help out others, there are limits.

So too with Palestine. It is pointless to ask who was the first to raise a fist, our start carrying a gun (which happened before the '20s). This sort of thing is virtually a given anywhere where an already populated country is chosen as a target for an outside group, and unwanted and large scale immigration takes place, despite the wishes of the long standing inhabitants. Violence tends to go in cycles, starting off small, and increasing in the absence of intervention.

One can say that Arabs did in fact "wait", as Jews lived in Palestine, and other Arab areas, in peace, and had for some time. It was only the aggressive transfer of population into Palestine that led to friction, and eventually war.



RoccoR said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.
> ...



I suppose it is, to the extent that it is an alteration of what most in the US see, due to intense lobbying and malleable politicians, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Arab wanted what they could not have. If one looks at the Map, you'll see the Arab ...



Which Arabs?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

Rocco R said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition turned-out to be the "external interference" that opened the 1948 War,...



The Palestinians were being attacked. The neighboring countries came to their assistance. Why do you call that hostile?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...





> Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel ...



What Arab country (ies) crossed the border into Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel
> 
> It's not the Zionists fault that the Arabs stink at warfare



Indeed, Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians. Piece of cake.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence



Another lie. 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their land before any Arab army entered Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence
> ...



Actually, this is a lie. Nice try making up your own numbers.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco R said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More Arab propaganda lies. The Arabs including the Palestinian Arabs were by far the aggressors. 5 Countries ganging up on tiny Israel with a tiny population but somehow you make Israel to be the aggressors.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The need to remove a large proportion of the Palestinian population was a problem long considered, for which an inevitable result was concluded. This has been documented by Israeli as well as Arab historians.

After 40 years or so of increasing violence, culminating in the ethnic cleansing of '48, it's safe to say everyone was at risk. The reason behind this though is the targeting of Palestine as a future Jewish state, despite the wishes of those in the region, and not some innate blood lust on the part of Arabs.

David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:


_"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)_


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

Auteur said:


> David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:
> 
> 
> _"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
> ...



ethnic cleansing.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel
> ...



Of course, the Palestinians were just angels ! 

Haifa Oil Refinery massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kfar Etzion massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hadassah medical convoy massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:
> ...


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> *Do you agree with these numbers?
> *
> "Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries.
> 
> ...



All lies.

The Palestinian population grown rate between 1918 and 1948 was exactly thr same as it was for Israeli Arabs between 1949 and 2013.

Close to 3%.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chomsky expresses similar thoughts in this recent interview:

"MZ: Do you think the Middle East is going through a rewrite of Sykes-Picot agreement?

"NC: I think the Sykes-Picot agreement is falling apart which is an interesting phenomenon. That is a century. *But, the Sykes-Picot agreement was just an imperial imposition that has no legitimacy*; there is no reason for any of these borders &#8211; *except the interests of the imperial powers.*..

"I think as far as Sykes-Picot is concerned, it is beginning to erode. Whatever happens in Syria &#8211; it&#8217;s hard to imagine &#8211; but if anything survives, parts of Syria will be separated. The Kurdish areas are almost autonomous now and they are beginning to link up with the almost-autonomous parts of Northern Iraq Kurdish areas, and may spill over to some extent to southeastern Turkey. What will happen in the rest of the country is hard to say.

MZ: Do you think the new borders will be made by the local population? Or new imperialisms?

NC: I wish that were true, but that is not how the world works. Maybe someday, but not yet, not today."

Noam Chomsky Interview: Sykes-Picot Is Failing | Al Akhbar English


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Auteur said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



Again, had it not been for the hostility and aggression of the war-mongering Arabs, Jewish military advances would not have happened. What you are basically saying is that if the Arabs had acted with courtesy when Israel declared independence instead of threatening annihilation , then Israel would have attacked the Palestinian Arabs for no reason but to take their land. That is just plain ridiculous


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



According to Morris's estimates, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[10]:262 Keesing's Contemporary Archives in London place the total number of refugees before Israel's independence at 300,000.[64]

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.



Well it could have been summer vacation time at the Riviera.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.
> ...



Or maybe there could have been a war going on


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Or maybe there could have been a war going on



what about the tens of thousands of Arabs that were kicked out of Israel after the war ended????????????


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Could be. Israel did start a war about that time.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Israel attacked 5 countries ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



When did I say that?


----------



## Auteur (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



The point of the quote is that the removal of the Palestinian population was long contemplated, and was fairly successfully carried out. How could it be any other way? This was an already populated country, and serious resistance to further Jewish immigration had arose as early as 1920, if not before. We are not talking about military advances here. Jewish forces systematically went to Arab villages, and forced inhabitants out, sometimes killing and committing other crimes against civilians. The Arab military invasion did not occur before this process, it happened at the height of it, which is indeed one of the reasons they were there.

These are inconvenient facts for present day Israelis, but to their credit, many, in academic circles anyway, have owned up to. Admitting the truth of the past is the only way to a true peace.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You are making it seem as if Israel started a war with Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians Arabs.
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You always always refrain from bringing up the 5 Arab nations that were belligerents in the 48-49 Arab-Israeli war. 
Since you like to speak of foreigners, I just showed you how foreigners from 5 different countries attacked the tiny state of Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



That is a different war. I wasn't talking about that one.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is another trick question?



P F Tinmore said:


> What Arab country (ies) crossed the border into Israel?


*(COMMENT)*

On May 15, 1948, Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined forces with Hostile Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), November 1947. 



The first Arab-Israeli war said:


> On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.
> *------------  A  N  D  ------------*​On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River _(which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City)_. More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
> 
> *SOURCE:* http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf



Chapter 3 of Part I - History _(page 15)_, covers the 1967 and 1973 wars and first steps towards peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is another trick question?
> 
> ...



That doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



We should be clear here when referring to "5 countries" invading Israel. These were not modern, well armed, industrial nation states, but essentially agricultural, peasant countries. The numbers of military committed were tiny in relation to their overall population, and the state of their societies meant little competence in using or maintaining modern weapons. At times there were probably as many armed Jewish fighters in Palestine was there were Arab combatants, with many better trained.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Auteur said:


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



You should also mention that they were attacked on 3 different fronts. 
Regardless of the military capabilities of the Arab armies, Israel was seen as the underdog by a large margin.

My Grandmother, who was born in Morocco in 1921 and later moved to Israel in 50's, used to tell me stories about the newscasts she would watch concerning Israel. I remember her mentioning how after Israel declared independence and the 5 Arab states attacked, that most of the world thought it was over for the newly declared state .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



The losing ones......


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 24, 2013)




----------



## dilloduck (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



A lot of Jews attribute the victory to God. The same one that Christians worship and are mocked for.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> A lot of Jews attribute the victory to God. The same one that Christians worship and are mocked for.



And a lot of Jews attribute the Holocaust to God.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



I attribute it to the Arabs being  horrible at conventional warfare


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> I attribute it to the Arabs being  horrible at conventional warfare



But they kick ass at attrition.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,



P F Tinmore said:


> That doesn't answer the question.









v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still a non answer.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Take a guess Tinmore. Guess what countries Rocco is trying to tell you that invaded Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Take a guess Tinmore. Guess what countries Rocco is trying to tell you that invaded Israel.



I don't know. I don't see a place called Israel on that map.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 24, 2013)

For a guy who knows there is no Israel, you sure do make yourself miserable over it.  Is it your Palestinain mentality that causes this?





P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Take a guess Tinmore. Guess what countries Rocco is trying to tell you that invaded Israel.
> ...


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Take a guess Tinmore. Guess what countries Rocco is trying to tell you that invaded Israel.
> ...



And this is why we can't have a conversation with you. Because you go back to the same old crap. If Israel didn't exist during the time of that map, then how does it exist now ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Good question. Where is it now?


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2013)

Tinnie, just because Rocco owned you badly again, doesn't mean you need to take your anger out on Israel lol
You're not even capable of enduring a normal conversation without asking idiotic questions like this one all the time. lol


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinnie, just because Rocco owned you badly again, doesn't mean you need to take your anger out on Israel lol
> You're not even capable of enduring a normal conversation without asking idiotic questions like this one all the time. lol



Nice duck.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 25, 2013)

Borders and a clear definition of who owned what land were quite vague at the time. I think any reasonable person would have to agree.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> Borders and a clear definition of who owned what land were quite vague at the time. I think any reasonable person would have to agree.



Those who like to confuse people with vague borders do not have any.


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie, just because Rocco owned you badly again, doesn't mean you need to take your anger out on Israel lol
> ...



What duck ? You asked where Israel now. Anyone in their right mind can see the sheer stupidity in the question. 
Do you own an Atlas??


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Borders and a clear definition of who owned what land were quite vague at the time. I think any reasonable person would have to agree.
> ...



Palestine has no borders. Israel has borders. That is a fact.


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

Click on this link and tell me what you see

https://www.google.ca/search?q=isra...60,d.dmQ&fp=eccba5025df75ac5&biw=1467&bih=689


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

toastman said:


> Click on this link and tell me what you see
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=isra...60,d.dmQ&fp=eccba5025df75ac5&biw=1467&bih=689



A lot of armistice lines but no borders for Israel.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XdEMbpSqa0]Northern Israel is "occupied" land says Palestinian Authority TV host to kids - YouTube[/ame]

Of course PMW is an Israeli propaganda site and are trying to lead people away from the truth.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Click on this link and tell me what you see
> ...


*
*
​
 Oh, you come up with some classics!


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

Hahaha Tinnie you are too much ! You are so bitter towards Israel, it's just unbelievable


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

You always call PMW an ISraeli propaganda site but you NEVER back it up.

All the translations are 100% accurate.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

toastman said:


> Hahaha Tinnie you are too much ! You are so bitter towards Israel, it's just unbelievable



I know land and borders are sore points for Israel because it has none.

I think Israel knows that it cannot keep up that facade forever,


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha Tinnie you are too much ! You are so bitter towards Israel, it's just unbelievable
> ...



You puzzle me, you really do.


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

Sure Tinnie, in your own little world that is true. I already gave you links that showed Israels borders that are INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED.
You're continuous denial despite all the indisputable evidence makes you look like a 13 year old. 

Yet you never gave me proof of Palestines borders NOW in 2013 that are internationally recognized.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


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



How so?


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


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



He's extremely bitter towards Israel. His comments are quite sad. He's the only pro Palestinians who makes these outlandish claims.


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Tinmore, how could Israel have no land if every map that shows the land from the Jordan River to the sea is labeled Israel ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

toastman said:


> Sure Tinnie, in your own little world that is true. I already gave you links that showed Israels borders that are INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED.
> You're continuous denial despite all the indisputable evidence makes you look like a 13 year old.
> 
> Yet you never gave me proof of Palestines borders NOW in 2013 that are internationally recognized.



In 1949 Israel had no land and consequently had no borders. You can't have one without the other. The only way Israel can acquire land is with an agreement with the Palestinians.

Nobody has been able to post such an agreement so the 1949 land and borders have not changed. Israel tries to back door borders with agreements with third parties but they have no legal standing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



Not every map. Just "western" maps.



> The vast majority of maps in Palestinian and Israeli schoolbooks omit the existence of the other entity, leading to children growing up with "an internal representation of their homeland, in which one does not include the other", according to the lead author of a three-year study.
> 
> Only 4% of maps in Palestinian textbooks show the green line, which separates Palestinian territory from Israel, or label the area west of it as "Israel". Almost six out of 10 maps depict no borders, and another third include the green line but make no reference to Israel.
> 
> ...


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

Just Western maps? DOn't you live in the West lol. What about maps in the east? None of tghem show Israel? 
 Like MJB and I said, you're very bitter towards Israel, so you make these retarded claims.

Take my advice, give up now because you really are making a fool of yourself.

Now, about these Palestinian borders and the agreements that made them and their international recognition, where are they ?


----------



## toastman (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Tinnie, in your own little world that is true. I already gave you links that showed Israels borders that are INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED.
> ...



For the bold, where did you read this?
I'm almost certain you made it up.... Got a link ?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jun 25, 2013)

I just find this hilarious I really do.  I first thought when I joined it could be because Tinmore is posting in the early hours and needs sleep but it seems to be absolutely outlandish claims at any time of the day too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Take a guess Tinmore. Guess what countries Rocco is trying to tell you that invaded Israel.
> ...



Wow! All those Arabs were beat by a place that wasn't there. 

That's all kinds of pussy.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



You should already know this stuff.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Just Western maps? DOn't you live in the West lol. What about maps in the east? None of tghem show Israel?
> Like MJB and I said, you're very bitter towards Israel, so you make these retarded claims.
> 
> Take my advice, give up now because you really are making a fool of yourself.
> ...



Every map of Israel shows Palestine's international borders with Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip inside defined by the 1949 armistice lines. Nothing has changed since then.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I'm not sure what you are saying here.



P F Tinmore said:


> Every map of Israel shows Palestine's international borders with Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip inside defined by the 1949 armistice lines. Nothing has changed since then.


*(COMMENT)*

The only undeclared territory left today consists of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which might be considered the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council as declared 15 November 1988; in mutual recognition between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization as outlined on 9 September 1993. 


*LINK--->* Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Then, of course, there is the recent non-member observer State status, which calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip the State of Palestine.


*LINK --->*A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations

*(QUESTION)*

What do you base your notion on?  Be specific with documentation (if available).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Well I don't, so please show me where you read this jibberish


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Just Western maps? DOn't you live in the West lol. What about maps in the east? None of tghem show Israel?
> ...



Nope, it just shows Israel. No mention of what you said liar. It shows the West Bank and Gaza in different colors.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure what you are saying here.
> 
> ...



Undeclared by whom?



> *LINK--->* Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat



Wasn't that a part of a peace agreement that fell apart and died?



> Then, of course, there is the recent non-member observer State status, which calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip the State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> *LINK --->*A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations





> Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,



Yawn,... let me know when any of that happens. Until then this is just another piece of UN toilet paper.

*(QUESTION)*

What do you base your notion on?  Be specific with documentation (if available).

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

I base my notion on the 1949 UN armistice agreements. Do you have something more recent?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

Lots of Israeli maps don't show Palestine.

Just as lots of Palestinian maps don't show Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Here, since you seem to need a lot of help:
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



The one who needs help is the person who is still living in 1949 

You're so lost Tinnie.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Do you have something more recent that would void these agreements?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Irrelevant.
When you open an Atlas and see Israel, dos it mention anything that you said ?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where does it mention that Israel is inside Palestine ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Where does it mention that Israel is inside Palestine ?





> This article needs additional citations for verification



Indeed.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Is the Atlas an official document?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Weak argument. IS that all you got ?
Show m any documented information from THIS century where it says ISrael is inside Palestine


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Where does it mention that Israel is inside Palestine ?



Israel is within the borders of historic Palestine, and the borders of the former Palestine Mandate.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

I'm asking for documented information that says that


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> I'm asking for documented information that says that



You want proof that modern-day Israel is within the borders of the former Palestine Mandate?

are you serious?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Are you serious ?


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

Modern day Israel is within the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate.

This is not debatable.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

The Mandate ended long ago. Keep up


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> The Mandate ended long ago. Keep up



Yes, we know that.

But modern-day Israel lies within the borders of what was the Palestine Mandate.

However, many right-wing Zionists argue that the Jewish settlement provisions of the Palestine Mandate are still in affect.

You guys can't have it both ways.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Tinmore is suggesting something else.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinmore is suggesting something else.



what is he suggesting?

that Israel lies within the borders of Historic Palestine?

well, that's somewhat true.

Though some maps of Historic Palestine don't go further south than Beersheba.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Tinmore is saying that ALL of Israel is occupying all of Palestine


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinmore is saying that ALL of Israel is occupying all of Palestine



With that attitude, he'll never get an inch for his people.  Then again, this is all a philosophical/abstract kind of debate for him.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinmore is saying that ALL of Israel is occupying all of Palestine
> ...



He really does a great job in making the pro - Palestinians look bad.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinmore is saying that ALL of Israel is occupying all of Palestine



Israel controls all of Mandate Palestine.

This is a fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> Modern day Israel is within the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate.
> 
> This is not debatable.



Even the term "former Palestine mandate" is misleading. It gives the false impression that Palestine no longer exists. The mandate was an administration that was assigned to Palestine. It had no land or borders of its own. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Even the term "former Palestine mandate" is misleading. It gives the false impression that Palestine no longer exists. The mandate was an administration that was assigned to Palestine. It had no land or borders of its own. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.



In 1949, Palestine ceased to exist in any legal or administrative form.

It had no internationally recognized borders, as the new state of Israel, recognized by the UNGA, took away most of those borders.

Palestine has historic borders, just as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires do, but they have no current legal borders.

That's unless you consider the West Bank to be the State of Palestine, which many nations agree with.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Even the term "former Palestine mandate" is misleading. It gives the false impression that Palestine no longer exists. The mandate was an administration that was assigned to Palestine. It had no land or borders of its own. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.
> ...



I disagree.

The 1949 armistice agreements (that Israel signed) called the place Palestine. In the agreements with Jordan and with Egypt, the Negev was specifically called Palestine. In many places Palestine's international borders were used to reference where armistice lines were drawn. Since the armistice lines were specifically *not* to be political or territorial borders they did not change Palestine's borders.

Of course these agreements were made after the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel was declared, and after the 1948 war so this was Palestine's status after all that.


----------



## MJB12741 (Jun 26, 2013)

Get serious.  Had the Palestinians accepted resolution 181 as Israel did, the Palestinians would have already had their own Palestinian State.  By voting against it the Palestinians made it non binding & sealed their own fate.  It's called Palestinian mentality.




P F Tinmore said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The 1949 armistice agreements (that Israel signed) called the place Palestine. In the agreements with Jordan and with Egypt, the Negev was specifically called Palestine. In many places Palestine's international borders were used to reference where armistice lines were drawn. Since the armistice lines were specifically *not* to be political or territorial borders they did not change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Of course these agreements were made after the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel was declared, and after the 1948 war so this was Palestine's status after all that.



What are the internationally recognized borders of Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.
> ...



From what I can tell they are the same as they have been since 1922.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What are TODAY'S internationally recognized border of Palestine ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



The same as they have been since 1922.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Ughhh...


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The same as they have been since 1922.



wrong.

The Palestine Mandate and its borders no longer exist.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922.  A lot has happened since then.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(OBSERVATION)*

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues _(given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination)_, I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.



			
				ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT NO LESS URGENT said:
			
		

> The international community cannot allow the current regional and international efforts to fail, he declared. There was an urgent need to salvage the prospects for peace. Good intentions alone would not suffice under the current circumstances, and the international community must be firm in demanding Israels compliance with all its legal obligations while making clear that continued violations will be met with measures of accountability.
> 
> Stressing that continuing on the current path was unsustainable, he said: Either we change course, where the law and rights are primary, or we must face the closure of the window of opportunity that remains to realize the historic compromise of two States and the onset of a new era and a search for alternative solutions to achieve peace and freedom, rights, justice and dignity that the Palestinian people had too long been denied, and for which they would never give up striving.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one _(no where - no how)_ is talking in 1922 terms.  I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League.   Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame. 



			
				POTUS on The Fact Checker said:
			
		

> "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
> 
> *SOURCE:* Understanding Obamas shift on Israel and the 1967 lines



Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.  

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues.  The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and _(occasionally)_ Golan Heights.  They talk about the real issues of the day.  

Don't fall behind.  Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line  the pre-1967 boundaries.  If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem.  The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate.  Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it.  Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out.  No one in the UN _(not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League)_ considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922.  A lot has happened since then.
> 
> ...



The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Tinmore, he's right. You are stuck in the past. I'm not saying that the past is completely irrelevant when discussing current issues about Israel/Palestine, but we are now in the 21st century. 
If you really are interested in discussing potential peace solution and border issues about I/P, then you have to stop with your jibberish claims about how Israel has no land/borders or civilians and that Israel is inside Palestine. Even the other pro - Palestinians on this forum think those claims are whacky. If you chose to continue with that mindset, then that's fine with me and I'll respect that, but don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously (except maybe Sherri )
Hope you understand


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



So, you want me to kick the truth to the curb like all the propagandists have done?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Well those claims are not true and we've already discussed that to the point of exhaustion. 
But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore. 
Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Reason?  I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the thriving, flourishing State of Israel will be dismantled.  The occupation of the West Bank will just be extended indefinitely, if these extreme, obsolete views will not be altered.  It's not easy for Israelis (or most of them anyway) to leave behind their heritage and history on the West Bank either.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


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



The two state solution has been on the table for *over75 years.*

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  toastman,  _et al,_

In history, the farther back we look, the more self-evident and clear some facts become. Who knows, a millennium from now ---> maybe you will become the preeminent scholar in history that explored and exposed the misinterpretations and skullduggery of the 19th and 20th Century (or maybe not!). 



P F Tinmore said:


> The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, the variation on the theme - the two-state solution - is much older than that.  As HRH, the Emir Faisal _(Faisal ibn Hussein)_, said in 1919: "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising 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;" the idea had roots going back to the early 20th Century _(nearly a hundred years ago)_. 

It was a very different tone than we have today; where the Fatah demand that:

Israel must give up all of Jerusalem before it would begin negotiations on a two-state solution.

This is not the tone when the "consummation of their national aspirations" (a State for each) was the mantra.  By the same token, when Chaim Weizmann _(President of the Zionist Organization, and later first President of the State of Israel)_ first agreed with HRH on the "surest means of working out" a cooperative effort, one of the tenants that they agree to was that the region would be secular in nature, no religious tests would ever be used.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, you want me to kick the truth to the curb like all the propagandists have done?


*(COMMENT)*

The truth of - whatever happened in the first half of the 20th Century, whatever that truth in history turns out interpreted to be, does not negate the ensuing half century of events that followed, nor the reality faced today.  We cannot change yesterday, but we can change tomorrow.  



toastman said:


> Well those claims are not true and we've already discussed that to the point of exhaustion.
> But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore.
> Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do


*(COMMENT)*

Our friend "toastman" is correct.  There is no intention to be disrespectful in any way.  But the facts are that the State of Israel was establish and has expanded, but whatever instrumentality you choose to dispute, by whatever events you choose to oppose; it happened.  Lines were drawn; by whatever name you want to call them, and by whatever legitimacy you want to assign them; they are there.  The State of Israel exists and _(apparently)_ the State of Palestine _(as of December 2012)_ exists.

Now we go back to the very beginning.  The intention was, as agreed by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann _(over 9 decades ago)_, "The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 26, 2013)

David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.

"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14] 

"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps. 

"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as

"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2013)

georgephillip,  _et al,_

Just from what you have written here, you don't make the case for "Ethnic Cleansing."



georgephillip said:


> David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.
> 
> "David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The purpose for the strategy _(deterrence and retaliation)_ is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" _(violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion)_.  What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.

Do you have evidence, or can you make a _prima facie_ case, that David Ben-Gurion intended a wider scope?  Incidentally, this is nearly the exact same strategy Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brought to Palestine.



			
				Arab Black Hand said:
			
		

> In 1930 al-Qassam's preaching was instrument in laying the foundations for the formation of the *Black Hand (al kaff al-aswad))*, an anti-Zionist and anti-British militant organisation, which he used to proclaim jihad and attack Jewish settlers.[14] The idea for such a group appeared to crystallize after the 1929 riots, though one source says a decision was taken after the Day of Atonement incitement at the Wailing Wall in September 1928. From the outset a split occurred in the movement, with one militant group led by Abu Ibrahim arguing for immediate terror attacks, while the other headed by al-Qassam thought an armed revolt premature, and risked exposing the group's preparations. According to Subhi Yasin, the terror attacks in the north were executed by this dissident group in defiance of Qassam, though in 1969 Abu Ibrahim denied these allegations. The ensuing terror campaign began with the ambush and murder of three members of Kibbutz Yagur, 11 April 1931, a failed bombing attack on outlying Jewish homes in Haifa in early 1932, and several operations that killed or wounded some four members of northern Jewish settlements. It climaxed with the deaths of a Jewish father and son in Nahalal, from a bomb thrown into their home, on 22 December 1932.[15]
> By 1935 he had recruited several hundred men,-the figures differ, from 200 to 800,- organised in cells of 5 men, and arranged military training for peasants.[14][16] The cells were equipped with bombs and firearms, which they used to raid Jewish settlements and sabotage British-constructed rail lines.[7] Though striking a responsive chord among the rural poor and urban underclass, his movement deeply perturbed the Muslim urban elite as it threatened their political and patronage connections with the British Mandatory authorities.[17]
> 
> SOURCE:  Izz ad-Din al-Qassam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.
> 
> "David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]
> 
> ...



I call your Ben - Gurion quote and I raise you a quote from  Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem:
*
Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.*


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, a good question.



P F Tinmore said:


> The two state solution has been on the table for *over75 years.*
> 
> If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone.  Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers.  The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan.  Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire.  The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish.  They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim.  They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law.  They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them.  They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid.  The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made _(Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution)_ relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not.  They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​
I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side.  But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.



Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, a good question.
> 
> ...



No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.
> 
> "David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]
> 
> ...


Since Georgie Boy is always using Wikipedia, I know he wouldn't mind me using something from the Jewish Virtual Library written by an historian.  As Georgie Boy can see, the Arab propulation increased because of the Jews who moved there.  Now if Georgie Boy has his eyes open and doesn't just sit around reading his usual sites, he will see in his own city of Los Angeles how Hispanics in huge numbers crossed our southern border for jobs which their own countries couldn't supply for them.  Of course, along with the Hispanics, again if Georgie Boy has his eyes open, he will see how multicultural his city has become what with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. with different ethnicities from all over the world.  Can Georgie Boy honestly say that the population is the same mix as it was when he finished high school?  Can he also say that all of Europe is the same when it comes to their populations?  People move to where the jobs are.  If their own countries can't help them, they will try someplace else, and this is why the Arabs moved to the area now known as Israel. 
The Arabs in Palestine


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, a good question.
> 
> ...


Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others.  I am  saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations..  It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects.  Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?


----------



## toastman (Jun 26, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



You are not wrong


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

So it looks like I owe you two answers.  Sorry for the tardy response, but I had to take care of a few things.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

To understand this _(and I don't know where your knowledge base is, so forgive me if I start with the basics)_, you have to start out understanding what an "insurgency" is.  An insurgency uses subversion and extreme violence with the goal to either overthrow or force change of a governing authority; or to stop such governing institutions from developing or forming.  An insurgency is both the group and its effort.  In the case of the Mandate of Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was an insurgent, his group (The Arab Black Hand) was an insurgency, and the insurgency was directed at both British Mandatory and the Zionist organizations in the northern Hejaz, Arab Levant Region _(which encompasses almost all of the territory in conflict)_; timeframe _circa_ 1920s and 1930s. This would be generalized as the at-risk nations or territories of strategic interest to the counterinsurgent.




Successful insurgencies are asymmetric actions that display a ruthlessness in its operations and a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective of the insurgency.  There are no taboo boundaries _(martyrdom, kidnappings, indiscriminate murders, targeting the unarmed, use of women and children as fodder and shields, etc)_.  The justification for the insurgency is based on the internal faith that it's cause is beyond criticism and it methods are not subject to any moral or legal accountability.  _(Both the Black Hand and Black September were in this field.)_

The opposing military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions adopted by governments and aspiring or emerging governments to defeat insurgency are in the family of internal defense and development operations (IDAD).  The specific class is counterinsurgency.  These are action programs taken by the government and other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security. 

In most cases, there is no pure military solution to an insurgency.  Once an insurgency reaches the stage in which its decision to strike are made in support of some high political cause, such strikes must be terrifying in nature.  Many insurgency strikes operate on a theory that it is better to kill too many people than too few (shock value and to instill fear).   Killing too few people will lessen the impact of the strike. In order to maximize the effectiveness of such a strike, it must then be publicized, without regret or excuse, so as to make it the best possible demonstration to the population of the consequences of not supporting an insurgency. In other words, the true objective of the strike is not to kill people; but rather, it is to display your ruthlessness and willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective.  Many such strikes are just to demonstrate that the government or the developing government is incapable of protecting the population it is suppose to protect.  As an example, the Gaza Strip fires rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets to demonstrate that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is incapable of defending against the insurgency which has the objective of undermining and the dismantling the State of Israel.

No insurgency operates in a vacuum.  The Gaza Strip Insurgents (GSI) (as an example) must derive support from some benefactor.  There are three counterinsurgency methods to undermine the GSI:


Cut-off foreign aid and assistance from external sources (IRGC-QF).  This requires a quarantine.
Counter Rocket & Mortar Fire (C-RAM) and retaliatory strikes. 
Apply pressure to the population that support and covers GSI operations and political activities.
Target the face of the GSI, know leadership (GSI C3I).
Identify, detect, exploit and nuetralize key personalities, logistic queues, and financial connections associated with the GSI.

The main idea of a strategy called "Drain-the-Sea" is to prevent unmolested insurgent  movement by identifying the sections of the local population that are likely to support the insurgency and then relocating them to places where they can be closely watched or controlled, and thus where any insurgent activity among them will be easy to spot. Those insurgents who remain after the supporting population has been relocated will be much easier to locate and deal with due to their isolation.  _(See Jeff Grey Australias Counterinsurgencies: A Brief History Australian Army Journal 5(2008)17-26. p. 21.)_



P F Tinmore said:


> No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?



I'm not sure I said that.  This is taken out of context.  The Israeli quarantine is for security purposes, not segregation.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Jun 27, 2013)

I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.


So who's the guilty party? Any clue?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So it looks like I owe you two answers.  Sorry for the tardy response, but I had to take care of a few things.
> 
> ...



I am still unsure how this applies to an occupation. That scenario does not seem to be addressed.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Jun 27, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.
> ...



Obviously, the party who segregates and discriminates and ethnically cleanses is the guilty party and that is Israel since 1947.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I find no laws sanctioning these acts against Insurgencies in intl law.  Am I missing something? I do not find in the rules of Occupation in The Geneva Convention a provision that Insurgencies make the rules there or the obligations in other intl treaty obligations of a Nation inoperative.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore, SherriMunnerlyn, _et al,_

Yes, this is a standing set of responses for an insurgency.



P F Tinmore said:


> I am still unsure how this applies to an occupation. That scenario does not seem to be addressed.


*(COMMENT)*

The insurgency is the active element within the armed Palestinian movement.

For instance _(example only)_, the most recent hero of Palestine (Samer Tariq ISSAWI), is an insurgent.  A member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), an insurgent group, subsidiary element of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). 

ISSAWI was arrest and convicted of possession of explosives and attempted murder in 2002.  He is a known bomb maker for the DFLP.  ISSAWI was apprehended in 2012 for violation of the terms of HIS early release. 

The DFLP is a secular Marxist-Leninist splinter group of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).   Engaged in anti-Israel activities _(an insurgency that has generally focused its violent activities within Israel and the Palestinian Territories)_.  

Some groups can be both a terrorist group and a insurgent group.  The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is an example.  The PIJ, hiding under the cover of the General Population in Gaza, more recently responsible for firing rockets into southern Israel (last Sunday), is both a terrorist group and an insurgent group.​


SherriMunnerlyn said:


> I find no laws sanctioning these acts against Insurgencies in intl law.  Am I missing something? I do not find in the rules of Occupation in The Geneva Convention a provision that Insurgencies make the rules there or the obligations in other intl treaty obligations of a Nation inoperative.


*(COMMENT)*

Oddly enough, I think you got it.  Relative to an insurgency, the insurgent is charged with the domestic or local law offenses and tactics used to further the insurgency:

Espionage,
Sabotage,
Subversion,
Treason,
Sedition,
Weapons violations, Illegal trading,
Explosives Handling,
Smuggling of Contraband,
Murder, 
etc, etc, etc,

The very first claim an insurgent makes, is similar to the claim ISSAWI makes.  HE would not say I was arrested for making bombs.  HE would say something like, I was arrested in connection with may activities to liberate Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Auteur (Jun 28, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others.  I am  saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations..  It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects.  Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?



I could also be wrong, but I have a hard time understanding how Americans just can't  seem to live peacefully with others. One of the highest murder rates in the world, and certainly one of the highest incarceration rates contributes to this befuddlement. So too does the ease with which the US can inflict mayhem on others, such as Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Guatamala, Grenada, and others. Given the multicultral nature of US society, is it really that hard for them to understand, empathize, and coexist with others....and even themsevles?


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > SherriMunnerlyn said:
> ...



Not obvious at all - especially to the Jerusalemites who were ethnically cleansed out of their homes in 1949 by the Jordanian military.

Jordan very clearly engaged 'ethnic cleansing' there - yet you have given a pass on that crime against humanity.  I think that needs to be explained.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Jun 28, 2013)

"I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UN&#8217;s International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are &#8220;committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.&#8221;* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, &#8220;Operation Cast Lead&#8221; in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, &#8220;Operation Pillar of Defense.&#8221;  Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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


Maybe I'm wrong, Hossie and Rocco, but doesn't it seem like Americans really like killing for money and market share on the opposite side of the planet from their homeland?

"Operation Speedy Express was a controversial United States military operation of the Vietnam War conducted in the Mekong Delta provinces Kien Hoa and Vinh Binh. The operation was launched to prevent NLF (Viet Cong) units from interfering with pacification efforts and to interdict lines of NLF communication and deny them the use of base areas..."

"The U.S. military claimed 10,889 enemy dead, with only 40 soldiers killed in this operation from the period of December 1968 to 31 May 1969 (a kill ratio of 272.2:1), but only 748 weapons were recovered (a ratio of enemy killed to weapons seized of 14.6:1). 

"The U.S. Army after-action report attributed this to the fact the high percentage of kills made during night hours (estimated at 40%), and by air cavalry and other aerial units, as well as asserting that '*many of the guerilla units were not armed with weapons*'. 

"The commander of the 9th Division, Major General Julian Ewell, was allegedly known to be obsessed with body counts and favorable kill ratios and said "the hearts and minds approach can be overdone....in the delta the only way to overcome VC control and terror is with brute force applied against the VC".[3]

"Controversy over the operation arose in June 1972, when Newsweek's Saigon Bureau Chief, Kevin Buckley (working with Alexander Shimkin), wrote an article titled 'Pacification's Deadly Price' that questioned the spectacular ratio of U.S. dead to purported Vietcong, as well the small number of weapons recovered, and suggested that perhaps more than 5,000 of the dead were innocent civilians (quoting an unnamed U.S. official). 

"Although Buckley acknowledged that NLF structure and control in the region was extensive, he wrote that local hospitals had treated more wounds caused by U.S. firepower than by the NLF.[4]

"More recently, former Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska, a veteran of the Ninth Infantry, alleged that some U.S. commanders on the ground inflated the body count during the operation since this was how their success was judged."


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

georgephillip; _et al,_

Again, sorry for being late, I had a few chores to take care of the last few days.



georgephillip said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, Hossie and Rocco, but doesn't it seem like Americans really like killing for money and market share on the opposite side of the planet from their homeland?


*(COMMENT)*

"Like killing!"

The US doesn't function on that premise.  The US is a political-military hegemony.  It operates on the mantra "Persuasive in Peace - Victorious in War."  It uses diplomacy first and force when it has on other option.

Money and Markets is not always the reason for US involvement.  Soldiers, prior to the "all volunteer force," don't get paid all that much.  But it is rare to find any military force that doesn't get paid.  I'm not sure I get you implication.



georgephillip said:


> "Operation Speedy Express was a controversial United States military operation of the Vietnam War conducted in the Mekong Delta provinces Kien Hoa and Vinh Binh. The operation was launched to prevent NLF (Viet Cong) units from interfering with pacification efforts and to interdict lines of NLF communication and deny them the use of base areas..."
> 
> "The U.S. military claimed 10,889 enemy dead, with only 40 soldiers killed in this operation from the period of December 1968 to 31 May 1969 (a kill ratio of 272.2:1), but only 748 weapons were recovered (a ratio of enemy killed to weapons seized of 14.6:1).
> 
> "The U.S. Army after-action report attributed this to the fact the high percentage of kills made during night hours (estimated at 40%), and by air cavalry and other aerial units, as well as asserting that '*many of the guerilla units were not armed with weapons*'.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, a typical counterinsurgency effort.



georgephillip said:


> "The commander of the 9th Division, Major General Julian Ewell, was allegedly known to be obsessed with body counts and favorable kill ratios and said "the hearts and minds approach can be overdone....in the delta the only way to overcome VC control and terror is with brute force applied against the VC".[3]
> 
> "Controversy over the operation arose in June 1972, when Newsweek's Saigon Bureau Chief, Kevin Buckley (working with Alexander Shimkin), wrote an article titled 'Pacification's Deadly Price' that questioned the spectacular ratio of U.S. dead to purported Vietcong, as well the small number of weapons recovered, and suggested that perhaps more than 5,000 of the dead were innocent civilians (quoting an unnamed U.S. official).


*(COMMENT)*

This is an "interpretation" based on innuendo "(suggested that perhaps)."  I could make a finding that there was a very large enemy component.  The fact that large weapons caches were not found in the dense jungle, doesn't mean they were not there; just well hidden.  



georgephillip said:


> "Although Buckley acknowledged that NLF structure and control in the region was extensive, he wrote that local hospitals had treated more wounds caused by U.S. firepower than by the NLF.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, innuendo!  At the time, the military operated on the principle of "volume of fire."  



georgephillip said:


> "More recently, former Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska, a veteran of the Ninth Infantry, alleged that some U.S. commanders on the ground inflated the body count during the operation since this was how their success was judged."


*(COMMENT)*

This is quite possible.  While not the only reason the US doesn't go in for body counts today, inflated counts certainly was a lesson learned. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UNs International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, Operation Pillar of Defense.  Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLoiJCuqsuM]Roger Waters on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "Epilogue" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Espionage,
> Sabotage,
> Subversion,
> Treason,
> ...



How much of this is relevant when fighting a foreign occupation,


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> > "I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UNs International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, Operation Pillar of Defense.  Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri
> ...



I love Roger Water and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is by far my favorite band. I can play many of their songs on guitar and drums .
I saw him live about 4 or 5 years ago in Montreal, and the first thing he said when he came on stage was: " It's been 33 years since I spat on one of you" referring to an incident where here spat on some rowdy fans hahahaha. Amazing musician


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force.  This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups.  But there really is no such right.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Under domestic law, all these apply.  None are based on some underlying International Law.  If a Palestine kills anyone in Israel _(or any territory Israel Occupies)_, for whatever reason, Israel domestic law on homicide is applicable.

Under International Law, there is no limitation to duration of an occupation.  There really is no law that prohibits an occupation that was pursuant to the hot pursuit of enemy forces, in which the overrun territory was occupied as a military necessity for rear area protection and the containment of hostile insurgent activity directed towards a sovereign state.

The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to  first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.



			
				The Question of Palestine and the United Nations said:
			
		

> Page 12 said:
> 
> 
> > On 11 May 1949, Israel became a Member of the United Nations. In admitting Israel, the General Assembly specifically took note of Israel&#8217;s declarations and explanations made earlier to the Assembly&#8217;s Ad Hoc Political Committee regarding *the implementation of resolutions 181 (II)* and 194 (III). Those declarations and
> ...


*(QUESTIONs)*


Who used force first?
Has there ever been a Peace between the Palestinian and Israelis since hostilities opened?

*(ANSWERs)*


No
No

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

_et al,_

The argument on Collective punishment presupposes that the collective is not in violation of law.  That they are not conspiratorially involved.



SherriMunnerlyn said:


> I love Roger Water and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is by far my favorite band. I can play many of their songs on guitar and drums .
> I saw him live about 4 or 5 years ago in Montreal, and the first thing he said when he came on stage was: " It's been 33 years since I spat on one of you" referring to an incident where here spat on some rowdy fans hahahaha. Amazing musician


*(COMMENT)*

The collective, voted for a leadership.  The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents.  That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.

Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.

This makes them active in aiding and abetting, or accessory to the offenses; an enemy population that has adopted and furthered the Hamas Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force.  This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups.  But there really is no such right.
> 
> ...





> Sabotage, Subversion, Treason, Sedition



I thought these were actions against your *own* country. How do they apply to an occupation?



> Weapons violations, Illegal trading, Smuggling of Contraband



Palestinian law states that it is legal to import and manufacture weapons. Where did you get this?



> Explosives Handling



All countries have explosives. Do you have a point.



> The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.



Let's see. The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That would be the first aggressive move.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> The argument on Collective punishment presupposes that the collective is not in violation of law.  That they are not conspiratorially involved.
> 
> ...





> The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.



The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> The collective, voted for a leadership.  The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents.  That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
> 
> Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.
> 
> ...



Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.

Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.

In the case of Gaza, yes there was a vote for Hamas, but under what conditions? Gaza is an open air prison, cut off from the world by Israel, with supplies uncertain, under constant military threat, if not actual attack. Do you think that might generate some militant feelings? Americans have in the past endorsed some pretty radical measures, such as the imperial adventure in Iraq for example, or the suspention of certain civil rights after 9/11, despite a generally comfortable existence. If under constant stress of hunger and attack, how radical would Americans become, do you think?

This is a rationale you want to be careful with, because following this logic Americans, participating in a true democracy, would become targets around the world, from 17 year old backbackers to vacationing grandmothers, due to the foreign policy of the US.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

Auteur said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The collective, voted for a leadership.  The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents.  That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
> ...



Concerning the bold, are you implying that if Israel were to lift the naval and air blockade, that those 'militant' feelings' you speak of would just disappear ?? 

My next question: Why do you think the blockades are there to begin with ?

And finally, can you please elaborate on your statement concerning Gaza being cut off from the world?

Thanks in advance


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, no one is saying that the Arab/Palestinian could not or cannot declare independence (exercise their right to self-determination).  If anything, it has been the Arab Palestinian themselves that have shot themselves in the foot.

The "Occupation" is a protective measure against the regional threat the Hostile Arab/Palestinian poses to the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (Israel).

An argument can be made that the Palestinian is, collectively, an international criminal enterprise that continues to adopt such measures to further the incitement of its population to commit acts of terrorist act or acts that obstruct the cause of regional peace.  It is a collective criminal enterprise that is organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.

These aforementioned actions are documented before the institution of "occupation" was establish as a means to contain and quarantine the nature of the criminal enterprise which is Palestinian.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

Auteur,  _et al,_

If this was a short-term confrontation, even one lasting a decade or two, I might agree.  But this has been going on for more than half a century.



Auteur said:


> Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.
> 
> Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians are NOT under the constant threat of "attack."  Although it is fair to say that they are under the threat of retaliatory strikes.  Big! difference.  _(Don't shoot at them, and they won't shoot at you.)_

At to the matter of consensus and duration:  The Palestinians have had over a half century to reach some sort of consensus as to whether to pursue peace, or continue the struggle against Israel.  I think it is reasonable to assume, unless the general population is moronic in nature, that after 60 years, the committee would have come to a conclusion.  I reject the notion that they are mentally incapable of reaching a decision.  I think they have.  I think they have chosen to be a criminal conspiracy using any international legal hoop to justify continued armed aggression and propaganda to overturn the outcome which allowed the State of Israel to form.  

If the Hostile Arab/Palestinian wants the "occupation" to end, and pursue a path towards peace, they need only demonstrate it by word and deed.

They haven't done that, and I do not think it is because it is a very new question and they haven't had time to form a consensus.  No, its because they actually don't want to enter into peace arrangements with the State of Israel.


_Recalling_ also the duty of States under the Charter to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in order not to endanger international peace, security and justice,

_Reaffirming_ the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

_Deciding_ No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
> 
> ...



Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Insurgents who purposely target civilians instead of soldiers/military cannot claim self defense. What Rocco said is completely correct and you know it, but you are too scared to admit it.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



How many times does Rocco have to dismantle this 'logic' . And stop calling it a COUNTRY. You admitted yourself it was not. You can't even keep up with your own statements Tinmore.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Until he gets it right.

Did I? Got a link?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, nearly all the insurgencies cite this as a reason.
> 
> ...



The Palestinians could have had their own country ten times over by now. But they have chosen the path of war, death and destruction instead, whilst crying over the fact that they have no state to call their own


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1N1zhUm84w]The great Palestinian lie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well!  Maybe say _almost_ a 100 years ago.  Technically, the undefined territory _(called today)_ Palestine, was under the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Mehmet IV Vahdettin), and the successor state did not renounce all formal rights of suzerainty, sovereignty, and or jurisdiction until 24 August 1920.  Only the Hedjaz was recognized by treaty and the Allied Powers as a free and independent State inside the Levant.

But let's call it good enough for Palestinian work.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hogwash. The occupation started with the assistance of Britain a hundred years ago. The Palestinians have been defending themselves since then.


*(COMMENT)*

In 5 Generations the conflict has endured.  And again, it was a Mandate, not an Occupation until 1967 when conflict was provoked.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The Palestinians declared independence in 1948 only to have the UN divide it into three areas of occupation the following year. I never could find out why that happened.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Well the purpose of dividing the territory was to give the Jews a state, was it not ?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



1948 ??? Where did you read that ??

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Palestinian Declaration of Independence is a statement written by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish and proclaimed by Yasser Arafat on 15 November 1988*


I thought this quote from the link was the most intriguing:

*Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



They did not do that. They just created three areas of occupation.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Well I definitely agree that nothing turned out how the U.N, British had planned and anticipated


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Indeed, even though it was quite predictable. They had 25 years of warnings that the idiots completely ignored.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

I'm not too sure I understand what you mean by warnings ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well!  Maybe say _almost_ a 100 years ago.  Technically, the undefined territory _(called today)_ Palestine, was under the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Mehmet IV Vahdettin), and the successor state did not renounce all formal rights of suzerainty, sovereignty, and or jurisdiction until 24 August 1920.  Only the Hedjaz was recognized by treaty and the Allied Powers as a free and independent State inside the Levant.
> 
> ...



I said *a* hundred not *one* hundred. You are being picayune.

It was supposed to be a mandate but it was run like an occupation. Britain violated the mandate by kicking the natives aside, who it was supposed to assist in creating an independent state, and pursued its own conflicting agenda.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



It's not the Brits fault that the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan on behalf of the Palestinians ....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



1947 was pretty late in the game. They should have known by then that they could not get the partition pig to fly


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Paul!  Sometimes you set me to giggling. 



P F Tinmore said:


> I thought these were actions against your *own* country. How do they apply to an occupation?
> 
> Palestinian law states that it is legal to import and manufacture weapons. Where did you get this?
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Murder, Espionage, treason, and sedition are usually domestic laws.  Israel would charge you under an Israeli statue; it is a matter of jurisdiction and venue.

Subversion, Weapons violations, Contraband Smuggling, can either be domestic or international.  There are several international conventions:  I'll just give a couple examples:

United Nations Official Document 67/58. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. 

Underlines the fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels;​
ODS HOME PAGE  60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy 

13. To step up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional and  international cooperation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls in  order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, and nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect;

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; ​
Once you start down the path of encouraging or inciting an insurgency or terrorist action, anything you do makes it dangerous.  International policy is:

_Reiterating_ its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

_Reaffirming_ that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

_Reaffirming_ the duty of States _not to use armed force_ to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Paul!  Sometimes you set me to giggling.
> 
> ...



Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?

Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
> Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?
> 
> Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now



They have never been offered anything but crap.

What is your point?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I think the appropriate question should be: What does 'occupation' have to do with his response ??
He was responding to your previous post and I think he did a great job being as detailed as he could be.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
> ...



That's your opinion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Detailed, but irrelevant if not in the proper context.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The only offer that they have ever had was to give most of their country to foreigners.

One would think that if people were calling for peace they could make more realistic offers.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You keep asking Rocco "what does this have to do with the occupation?"
What exactly do you want him to say concerning the occupation ??? Just ask him straight up


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You seem to be posting this under the assumption that:

1) Palestine was a country (common now, what kind of a country is under Mandate by an allied power ?????)
2) The Palestinians were the ones who "ruled" the land, when in fact never in one point did the Palestinian Arabs 'rule' it. I think Rocco has done a good job today and in the past concerning sovereignty and right.
3)The Palestinians are not responsible for ANY of the factors that is related to them not forming a legit country.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, there is actually a relationship.



P F Tinmore said:


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


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



If Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, who then? A bunch of foreigners out of Europe?

Britain was assigned to Palestine. It never annexed or otherwise claimed possession of that land. When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I never said that Tinmore ! Please don't put words in my mouth. 
I don't think the word 'belong' is the correct word to use here. 
The British captured the land during World War 1 from the Ottomans, not from the Palestinians. The Ottomans were Turks, not Palestinians or Palestinians Arabs. 
So what do you mean when you say 'belong'


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



France belongs to the French. Canada belongs to the Canadians. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. What part of this confuses you?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Nice duck. 
The land belongs to whoever is ruling it at any point in time. You can argue  that the Palestinians Territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank) belongs to the Palestinians, but Israel belongs to the Israelis, just like you said France belongs to the French and Canada to the Canadians . You cannot really dispute that


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, there is actually a relationship.
> 
> ...


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ? 
Why would they initiate a conflict that they were doomed to lose (nobody gave them a chance in the war, not even the Israelis). Take that from my dad, who began his service in the IDF in 1967 and was in full out combat in 1973


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Rules not owns. An occupation rules territory it does not own. That is why it is called an occupation.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip; _et al,_
> 
> Again, sorry for being late, I had a few chores to take care of the last few days.
> 
> ...


Rocco...I know I went off track again, but I'm wondering if you could give me a yes or no answer to this question:

Do you still believe you were one of the "good guys" in Vietnam?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
> Why would they initiate a conflict that they were doomed to lose (nobody gave them a chance in the war, not even the Israelis). Take that from my dad, who began his service in the IDF in 1967 and was in full out combat in 1973



Are you saying that the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
> ...



I'm talking about the conflict that led to the West Bank and Gaza being occupied. 

The Palestinians were part of that war, were they not ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



How did you get in the middle? I thought we were talking about who started the conflict.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You were talking about the territory that came under military occupation. That took place in 1967 . Could be I misunderstood you


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

And for the 500th time, the Jews didn't come there out of nowhere to instigate a conflict. Jewish/Zionist immigration was ENCOURAGED and A FASCILITATED by the British, who ruled the land after they captured it after World War 1 from the Turks,


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Perhaps, I was discussing the beginning of the conflict.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
> Why would they initiate a conflict that they were doomed to lose (nobody gave them a chance in the war, not even the Israelis). Take that from my dad, who began his service in the IDF in 1967 and was in full out combat in 1973


Israel did initiate the conflict in '67 just as it did in '48.
That is simply the purpose that settler-colonialist states perform for Empire:

"The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields after a period of high tension that included an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank[12][13] in response to sabotage acts aimed at Israeli targets,[14][15][16] 

"Israeli initiated aerial clashes over Syrian territory,[17] Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli response against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency (initiated by Israel) into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border[18] and culminating in Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran.[19] and ordering of the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force."

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> And for the 500th time, the Jews didn't come there out of nowhere to instigate a conflict. Jewish/Zionist immigration was ENCOURAGED and A FASCILITATED by the British, who ruled the land after they captured it after World War 1 from the Turks,



And they expected to peacefully take over someone else's country.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

Over someone elses what ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Over someone elses what ?



Are you saying that Palestine was not the Palestinian's country? That it belonged to a bunch of foreigners out of Europe?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Over someone elses what ?
> ...



No, we're saying that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, that they never willingly abandoned the land, and that they are decidedly NOT foreigners.  No matter how many people choose to deny or ignore these facts, they remain facts.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


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


You're saying that Jews alone among all nations of the world are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago.

Why is that?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
> ...



You're leaving out a lot of info there George ! What were the events that led up to the pre - emptive strike ?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I know that, Toast, and I know we're not too likely to agree on many of the specifics; however, I wonder if you have ever heard of the Coup plan?

"Shortly before the outbreak of war, elements within the IDF considered a military coup[disputed &#8211; discuss] against the Israeli government, which would have been followed by the new military government ordering a unilateral attack against the Arab nations. 

"The idea was that of Major-General Ariel Sharon, who discussed it with other senior officers. While no definitive plans were ever drawn up, the idea was given serious consideration.

"In the days before the war, the Israeli cabinet was indecisive over whether to follow through with the planned preemptive attack or pursue diplomacy, with military advisers pressing for an attack. Many pro-war officials felt that an Arab invasion of Israel was imminent, and that to delay a paralyzing first strike would be a serious threat to Israel. 

"Sharon and other military officials felt that the civilian government would be unable to reach a necessary decision. On May 28, 1967, eight days before the war began, Sharon met with IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin and other senior officials. 

"He advised them that the cabinet could be detained, a coup declared, and the planned unilateral strike against the Arab nations to be implemented. 

"Rabin showed no opposition to the idea."


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

Ya, I've heard about it.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 28, 2013)

georgephillip said:


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



If you misquote me, you get no answer.  Feel free to try again.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2013)

"In 1917 there were 56,000 Jews in Palestine and 644,000 Palestinian Arabs. Still Britain gave Jewish capital 90 percent of concessions for projects like building roads and power plants and by 1935, Zionists owned 872 out of the 1,212 industrial firms in Palestine."

Jewish genius or British benevolence?

The Hidden Roots of Zionism


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "In 1917 there were 56,000 Jews in Palestine and 644,000 Palestinian Arabs. Still Britain gave Jewish capital 90 percent of concessions for projects like building roads and power plants and by 1935, Zionists owned 872 out of the 1,212 industrial firms in Palestine."
> 
> Jewish genius or British benevolence?
> 
> The Hidden Roots of Zionism


I wonder how come Georgie Boy's sites never mention the Zionist Yehiel Tschlenov from the Ukraine who was the one who said that the Jewish Homeland had to be where it is today and not in Uganda or anyplace else.   All Georgie's propaganda sites seem to focus on Herzl. Your sites are certainly remiss, Georgie Boy.  By the way, Georgie Boy, do you really think that the Arabs would have done as good as the Jews when it came to industry.  Why don't you show us how good the industrial base was in the surrounding countries so that the Arabs could have stayed in those countries instead of moving to get jobs which the Jews had for them.  In fact, why don't you show us the industrial base today of the Arab countries which have no oil.  In fact, can you imagine what Saudi Arabia and the Gulf State would be doing today if they didn't have any oil -- probably still living in tents.

Board of the Seventh Zionist Conference with members of the Center for Russian Zionists in Petrograd. Sitting from right: Avraham Poliashevsky, M. Ussishkin, Yehiel Tschlenov, Zeev Tyomkin, Hillel Zlatopolsky. Standing: Attorney Yaakov Kalibanov, Yit

You can see him here in Jerusalem in 1913.

Handwork school for Girls, in Jerusalem, founded by Sarah Tahun. I. Tschlenov during a visit., VIA (Visual Information Access), Harvard University


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2013)

georgephillip,

I was on the side of my country.



georgephillip said:


> Rocco...I know I went off track again, but I'm wondering if you could give me a yes or no answer to this question:
> 
> Do you still believe you were one of the "good guys" in Vietnam?


*(COMMENT)*

Good Guys

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



OK, the Israelis can have everything inside Israel's borders.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What about all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates ?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I can't speak for HB67 but I certainly think so. In fact, I know for certain.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Therefore, Arab Palestinians with deeds dating from Ottoman times to lands their families have lived on and farmed for generations should step aside for Ashkenazi from Romania, right?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did.  You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Complete nonsense. The history of the world is one of vast movements of peoples and sweeping changes in demographics. Europeans fought over varioius tracts of lands in North and South America, and dislaced the then aborignial inhabitants, who before that we busy displacing each other. Russia expanded from a small principality around Moscow to a huge chunk of the Eurasian land mass. Celts in Britain were ruled by Romans, swamped by Anglo-Saxons, colonized by the Norse, and then again later by a Norse/French hybrid. The Chinese today are turning the demographics of Tibet on its head.

Choosing some "original" time in history, and saying we can all go back to that, is absurd. If this were applied evenly, just about every ethnic group in the world could make a move on some other. My ancestors from 2000 years ago more than likely came from Norway. Today Norway is a discreet community, happy with itself. Some in China, for example, may feel it grossly underpopulated. Some in the Muslm world may distain its culture, and feel it should be changed. But they are happy with themselves. Do you think I have a right to go there, and order people out?

Jews may indeed have emotional feelings for the holy land. This is perfectly fine, but it does not give them a right to displace land standing residents from their home.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Can you name a nation other than the Jews who are currently demanding title to lands their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Some Zionists have displayed an absolute genius for using the strong emotional feelings that many Jews have for the holy land for some less than holy pur$uit$. If we define Zionism as the national aspiration of the Jewish people for a homeland, it's at least worth asking why Zionism, as a national liberation movement based on the fundamental concepts of equality among nations and self-determination, chose to align itself with the powers of global imperialism. It makes me wonder if elite Zionists were really more concerned with colonization than with liberation.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

toastman said:


> Concerning the bold, are you implying that if Israel were to lift the naval and air blockade, that those 'militant' feelings' you speak of would just disappear ??
> 
> My next question: Why do you think the blockades are there to begin with ?
> 
> ...



I think you are simply too caught up in the ongoing cycle of violence and retribution to step back and see a bigger picture. Each outrage is a payback for the previous one, going back through time. If a just settlement is ever going to come though, one must look at root causes. These have been presented here, and denied.

I believe militancy can be reduced and eventually rolled back, but as I say, it will take some honest and courageous talk, something lacking to date. Germany and Israel today have reasonably good relations, and we could hardly think of two groups with greater cause for historical animosity now could we?

Access to Gaza is completely controlled by Israel, except for the short border with Egypt. And until recently, that was more or less the same status, probably due to US pressure on Egypt, leveraged by their considerable financial support.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



That's not an accurate description of Zionism.  If you don't understand the issues, go do some research (and not just on Wikipedia), and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Auteur,  _et al,_
> 
> If this was a short-term confrontation, even one lasting a decade or two, I might agree.  But this has been going on for more than half a century.
> 
> ...



Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you seem to be doing here. You refer to the "Palestinian" as though this was some individual entity. What if I were to refer to the "American", and tut tut about said entities preoccupation with handguns and the drug trade? Sound fair?

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


The ADL defines Zionism, in part, as "the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland...a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination." 

Chomsky claims until December 1942 Zionists were found on both sides of the "Jewish state" question:

"Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement. 

"Later, the concept 'Zionism' was very narrowly restricted for propaganda reasons. 

"By the 1970s, when Israel chose expansion and dependence on the US over security and integration into the region, the concept 'Zionism' was narrowed to refer, in effect, *to support for the policies of the government of Israel.*"

Justice for Palestine?, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen R. Shalom and Justin Podur

*What's your choice?*


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip;  _et al,_

Just a minor point of order.



georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First:

The Jewish People, in forming a national home, are not demanding "title."  The idea of "title" is a real estate term of ownership _(to him and his heirs - fee simple absolute)_.  The property rights and values of the Arab Palestinian are protected and always have been _(it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine)_; and has been since that was agreed to originally by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann.

The issue is now over sovereignty and regional security.  The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) presented a security threat which triggered displacement and abandonment.  It was never a matter of land ownership.  While it was a consideration, until the HoAP uprisings and wars, title (ownership) was protected.

Even today, all this talk about borders and boundaries is a question of "sovereign integrity," and not "title."​
Second:

Those Powers, that made the decision to support the idea behind the Jewish National Home, and later Statehood, understood that very unique problems require a very unique solution.  In the early 20th Century, it was very well understood that the Allied Powers, being the strong of the Earth, had a humanitarian responsibility to help the Jewish, being the weak of the Earth, from further exploitation and extermination by self-righteous cultures that see themselves superior to others.  Thus, the Allied Powers, thought it best, in recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, set the conditions for reconstituting the Jewish national home.​
I don't think that the early 20th Century leaders, being a product of 19th Century philosophy and teaching, looked at the Arabs of the Levant, under Imperialist Rule for more than 800 year after the fall of the Rome Empire, as a cohesive culture that was able to stand on its own or even understood the complexities of sovereignty.  In fact one can see that even today, many that discuss the issues, don't have a grasp between the civil tort issue of land ownership and that of governmental administration, sovereignty and independence.  

_[*Noting:* With the exception of the hereditary line of Sharif Hussein bin Ali Hussein (Hashemite line of Kings) Emir of Mecca and King of Hejaz, which fathered the line for the Kings of Jordan, Iraq and Syria; all installed under original Mandate out of the Ottoman Empire.  They understood the issue was about sovereignty, responsibility, and power.  Only the The Emir of Mecca, HRH Prince Khalid al-Faisal, and the King of Jordan, HM Abdullah II ibn Al-Hussein, of the Hashemite Dynasty remain.  Both Iraq and Syria are a mess; and trouble even until today.]_​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur,  _et al,_

Sure, I'll answer the best I can.



Auteur said:


> Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity?


*(COMMENT)*

No.



Auteur said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you seem to be doing here. You refer to the "Palestinian" as though this was some individual entity. What if I were to refer to the "American", and tut tut about said entities preoccupation with handguns and the drug trade? Sound fair?


*(COMMENT)*

I do not believe the "people" I refer to as Palestinians today, are either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.  Just as I don't see Americas as either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.

I see the Palestinians as a product of Regional development, _albeit,_ very bad development.  I see them as the hereditary outcome of five (5) successive generations of regional families that have turn cancerous and virile with hate; unable to focus on anything productive or contributory to their immediate society, their regional culture, or humanity as a whole. 



Auteur said:


> As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I *note general silence when key points are raised*, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure I saw you specifically address His Majesty's Plan.  My understanding is that it is not all that dissimilar to the Security Council Resolution 242.  The two key points of the Saudi Arabian Plan are:

For Israel to:

a) To withdraw fully from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and from the territories in southern Lebanon that are still occupied;

(b) To arrive at a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III);

(c) To accept the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;​
In exchange, the Arab States will:

(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end and enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;

(b) Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace;​
There are some serious risks involved an this arrangement.  The Council of the League of Arab States doesn't actually underwrite the agreement (if adopted) for enforcement purposes.  But, it is up to the Israelis to determine if it is in their best interest to adopt such an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Auteur,  _et al,_
> 
> Sure, I'll answer the best I can.
> 
> ...



It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

*Rocco...when you say* "(T)he property rights and values of the Arab Palestinian are protected and always have been" by making reference to the Balfour Declaration, you're whitewashing the western imperialistic values that mandated the creation of a "little loyal Jewi$h Ul$ter" in the heart of Arab nationalism.

If you honestly believe that wasn't the case, how do you explain the economic privileges Britain bestowed upon their loyal Jewish minority?

"When the war ended, Palestine became a British colony and the Zionists found they shared many interests with their new colonial masters. 

"In 1917 Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, which was the first official recognition of the Zionist settlements in Palestine. Under the British Mandate Government, Britain privileged the small Jewish population over the Palestinians. 

"In 1917 there were 56,000 Jews in Palestine and 644,000 Palestinian Arabs. Still Britain gave Jewish capital 90 percent of concessions for projects like building roads and power plants and by 1935, Zionists owned 872 out of the 1,212 industrial firms in Palestine.

"The British ruling class, which was rabidly anti-Semitic, had its own reasons..."

The Hidden Roots of Zionism

Assuming those statistics are correct (there are no footnotes) do you still believe Arab values and property rights were always protected?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 29, 2013)

The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.


----------



## toastman (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


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



You just love putting words in people's mouths, don't you ?

Where did Rocco say that all Palestinians are useless ????
Where did he say ALL of them are violent Jihadists ?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


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


Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?

Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


Palestinian textbooks erase Israel, give no hope for peace - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur,  _et al,_

No, I think you and I have a difference in the way we think about cultures and ethnic backgrounds.



Auteur said:


> It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.


*(COMMENT)*

The numbers are totally unimportant to me.  That is merely ancillary to the issue but not critical to the issue.

What I think of, when I say Arab Palestinian today, are those in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Ethnically, they are not so very different than those millions that are in the surrounding countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Maybe some minor differences in the gene pool, but not much.  How they do differ, in some regards, is that they, culturally have moved on in some respects.

I don't care what their claims are.  What I see is an identifiable group that has become so focused, and so depraved, that they literally halted all progressive activity that might contribute to the success, prosperity, and positive development of their culture and society.  

I look at the Jordanian, and see something entirely different.  Yet, they are essentially the same people; ethnically and culturally.  It is a matter of focus.



Auteur said:


> A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.


*(COMMENT)*

That is your observation.  But it is not mine.



			
				Israeli PM: EU Should Join US Push on Peace Talks JERUSALEM June 19 said:
			
		

> Israel's prime minister says the European Union should join U.S. attempts to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu also reiterated Israel's position that talks should resume immediately and without preconditions, which is also the U.S. stance. He spoke Thursday at a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
> 
> ...




Palestinian snipers fight for Assad
"We're on the front line with Palestinians fighting for the Assad regime. Snipers do much of the fighting, and death can come any second," Pleitgen says in a video released by CNN. "This is a pro-government sniper YNET News · 6/23/2013



I don't care about ethnic background or cultural traits and characteristics.  I care about the establish pattern of behavior.  What trust and confidence does the Palestinian project.

The Palestinian has to first demonstrate they are on the path to peace.  A good first step would be for Hamas (popularly supported by the people) to disband the military wing and to disarm the Islamic Jihad; and then change the Charter.  That would be a first step.  But as long has the Palestinian has goals and objectives that are a threat to Israeli sovereignty, talk is cheap.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Auteur,  _et al,_
> 
> No, I think you and I have a difference in the way we think about cultures and ethnic backgrounds.
> 
> ...



You are just saying the same thing in different words. You are saying those folks over there, those__________(fill in the blank) are all the same, that's just the way they are. We can come up with many identifiable groups- Arabs, blacks, the poor, the rich, whites, etc. If you think an entire population, numbering in the millions, are all the same, then that is  prejudice, in the literal meaning of the term. You have pre-judged them in a non-scientific and inaccurate way. This is an important point because it is central to the ongoing conflict. Arabs have been assaulted by Jews, and so they think that all Jews are a certain way. Jews have been attacked by Arabs, and so think Arabs are all a certain way. This keeps the cycle of violence spinning.

Even if you conducted a series of scientific polls on attitudes in Palestine, it would still be limited in value. If you had conducted such a study regarding French attitudes to Germans between 1940 and 1944, what do you think the results would have been?

Inject some fairness into the negociations, make some progress, and then see how attitudes are. In fact, things were easing up a bit in the '90s, when peace was seen to be possible, if not right on the horizon. Times change and people move on. German tourists now visit Israel. But they are not going to change if one side remains second class citizens, and if history is distorted and denied.


----------



## toastman (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


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



If I may butt in for a moment. I bolded that sentence because, though I somewhat agree , I truly believe that what keeps the cycle of violence of violence is the teaching of hatred towards Israelis (and Jews to some degree) and the glory of martyrdom by Palestinian parents to their children. It has already been documented that Palestinians schoolbooks have completely erased Israel from any and every. It has already been documented that many (no , not all of course) Palestinians teach their kids to hate Israelis and to fight them no matter what. They teach their kids to celebrate successful attacks where Israelis, civilian or military, are killed. They teach their kids that martyrdom is a graceful path to take in life, if it means getting killed whilst trying to kill Israelis or die while fighting Israel. It is poisoned generation after poisoned generation in Gaza. What Rocco said about the Palestinians never showing their alleged desire for peace by taking initiative and changing their ways (i.e changing the charter like Rocco suggested). 
Until they can teach their kids peace, teach them to recognize Israel and teach them to value life rather then to encourage them dying for the sake of Palestine, then there simply will never be peace
Children are the future


----------



## toastman (Jun 29, 2013)

I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?
> 
> Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> ...



I'll explain them to you quite clearly. You live in the US, correct? Try this little thought experiment. It's the future, and things aren't going at all well in Latin America. Poverty, environmental issues, and an exploding population has sent millions northward. At first, the US was OK with some increased immigration. When it hit some tens of millions, friction occured, fights and shootings. When it hit 100 million, various militias armed, and real war was under way. The US is a generous country, but can only absorb so much of the world's troubles- or its people.

The Latinos consider they have a right to the country, or at least parts of it, for historical reasons. Spain once controlled Florida and the SW part of the nation, the later part at least taken away from its successer state by means dubious under current notions of international law. Now that they are a majority in those areas, they proclaim a new state. US citizens fight back, and the conflict reaches a low point with many of them forced out of their communities and driven northward, and are sometimes killed if they refuse.

Nine years later, the Latinos participate in an attack on the US, during an unrelated dispute with other nations- a stab in the back, if you will. Tempers simmer, and a few years later the US starts some actions to try and regain some territory. Troops are  moved, threats issued. A surprise attack occurs before anything much can happen, and the US loses even more territory. The Latinos now have the nuclear bomb, and the backing of China and Russia, making counterattack problematic. Violence continues on a low level, with Americans firing the odd rocket south, and Latino planes retaliating.

Now, a few questions for you. Do you think some pretty militant attitudes would prevail in the US society? Do you think some, a small minority, would committ some pretty outrageous violence? What would be shown on the maps in US school books? Do you think some extremist politicians could get elected?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 29, 2013)

toastman said:


> I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians



Do you have some stats to back up what you say?


----------



## toastman (Jun 29, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot to mention that of course there is some hostility towards Palestinians from the Israelis, but not nearly to the same frequency or level of the Palestinians
> ...



No,, I do not


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.


*Credibility with whom?*

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/&#712;no&#650;m &#712;t&#643;&#594;mski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[8][9] cognitive scientist, logician,[10][11], political critic, and activist. 

"He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.[12] 

"In addition to his work in linguistics, he has written on war, politics, and mass media, and is the author of over 100 books.[13] 

"Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited within the field of Arts and Humanities more often than any other living scholar, and eighth overall within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index during the same period.[14][15][16][17] He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll."

Convince me you know more about the Middle East than Chomsky does.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.
> ...



Chomsky's problem is bias, not ignorance.  If you look up "self hating Jew" in the dictionary, you'll find his picture.

And, let me assure you... I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  Why would I bother?  Your mind is closed to the truth.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

toastman said:


> If I may butt in for a moment. I bolded that sentence because, though I somewhat agree , I truly believe that what keeps the cycle of violence of violence is the teaching of hatred towards Israelis (and Jews to some degree) and the glory of martyrdom by Palestinian parents to their children. It has already been documented that Palestinians schoolbooks have completely erased Israel from any and every. It has already been documented that many (no , not all of course) Palestinians teach their kids to hate Israelis and to fight them no matter what. They teach their kids to celebrate successful attacks where Israelis, civilian or military, are killed. They teach their kids that martyrdom is a graceful path to take in life, if it means getting killed whilst trying to kill Israelis or die while fighting Israel. It is poisoned generation after poisoned generation in Gaza. What Rocco said about the Palestinians never showing their alleged desire for peace by taking initiative and changing their ways (i.e changing the charter like Rocco suggested).
> Until they can teach their kids peace, teach them to recognize Israel and teach them to value life rather then to encourage them dying for the sake of Palestine, then there simply will never be peace
> Children are the future



I don't condon the kind of radical exortations you describe that some Arabs engage in. It is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when Jews do it. But ask yourself a question: If the German occupation of Europe had continued for three generations, rather than four years, how radical do you think otherwise reasonable citizens would have become? Just in the space of four years, many who would have thought of nothing other than civilized discourse had picked up a gun, and done some exteme acts. This also applies to the Jews of Europe at the time. How many of those fighting in the Warsaw uprising could have possibly seen themselves in such a position just a few years previously? Violence begets violence, hate begets hate.

As for Palestinians never accepting peace, I refer you again the the official position of the PA, which supports the Saudi peace  proposal of 2002. It is a generous plan, and it represents a large shift from the Palestinians original position. The response from Israel, to date, has been rejection and further colonization of the west bank.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?
> ...


What does all that have to do with the links I posted? The Palestinians simply do not want peace according to all their actions and speeches. If Israel granted them all their demands they would still refuse to recognize Israel and find an excuse to continue their 65 year idiocy.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


You consider yourself a spokesperson for the truth?

"Chomsky has made many criticisms of the Israeli government, its supporters, the United States' support of the government, and its treatment of the Palestinian people, arguing that  'supporters of Israel' are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction and that 'Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security may well lead to that consequence.'[116] 

"Chomsky disagreed with the founding of Israel as a Jewish state, saying, 'I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state."

The truth is anyone holding Israel or the US to the same moral standards as the rest of the world is either an anti-Semite, self-hating Jew, or anti-American to those blinded by their bias.

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Auteur (Jun 29, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



You were unable to comprehend the analogy Mr H. But in a way, I believe you have unwittingly illuminated a large part of the problem here. The general failure of the US education system, and the acceptance of such within the culture, has left a rather large vulnerability. Knowledge is power, they say, but then by the same token ignorance is vulnerability. Those that don't know can be much more easily manipulated. Outside of the US, how many buy the line of Jewish rights to Palestine? It's pretty thin, isn't it? The proper application of funds in Washington, and the astute writings of the media in the US have produced a certain paradigm in that country. Who is to dispute it? It seems reasonable, and to those with little background information- why would they doubt it? There are of course many that do- Chomsky for one, Obama (in his private moments, I'd guess) for another. But the difference here is: they read. They have, and do, read a lot. Do you? Do you know, for example, that the PA has already recognized Israel? And has granted it generous concessions? Agreed to sign over three quarters of their country to Israel in exchange for peace?


----------



## toastman (Jun 29, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



A link for this claim would be nice


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 29, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



If that's how you wish to term it... sure, why not?  I speak the truth, and I make no apologies for doing so.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I don't have a link offhand but it was called the declaration of principles as a part of Oslo. There are some problems with this.

Oslo died. Its five years came and went without a peace agreement. Could proposed concessions still be valid if the peace agreement was never validated?

Arafat and the PA were installed as the government of Palestine by foreign powers without the consent of the people. Are their proposals valid?


----------



## Auteur (Jun 30, 2013)

toastman said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



A link and excerpt from the Saudi peace plan has been reproduced in two places here now. The official position of the PA is that they will base peace on a sovereign state using '67 borders, with a few minor adjustments either way as a guide, and settlement of the refugee issue, mutual recognition, and the opening of trade and other links included. That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 30, 2013)

Auteur said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...


Where do you come up with this "their country" mumbo jumbo? God gave Israel the land and that's written in stone.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Indeed, the great realtor in the sky.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 30, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...


Could you tell  us which education system you have been dumbed down by?  Inquiring minds would like to know.  By the way, inquiring minds would also like to know if you also blabber about what is happening to innocents in so many parts of the world?  Regardless of you being dumbed down by the education system wherever you grew up, surely they most have taught you that people around the world have the right to their religious beliefs and they should not be killed for these beliefs.  Perhaps you can give us a hint of all the forums you are on condemning what is happening, or are you just obsessed with the Israel/Palestine issue because the Jews are involved.  Gee, maybe this poster is really a Muslim who might have come from Pakistan or Malaysia.  After all, we are quite aware that practically all the Muslims are obsessed with the Jews having one inch of land to govern, and they could care less about their brethren murdering others, even when the others are Muslims of different sects.  By the way, can anyone tell us if Chomsky has ever written about what is going on in the Muslim  world?  Can anyone tell us if he has ever written about the occupation of Tibet by China where China forces young Tibetan women to have abortions so that the Tibetan culture dies out?  Or is Chomsky just obsessed with bashing the U.S. and Israel and conveniently closes his eyes to everything else?  Surely all you fans of Chomsky can lead us to a list of his publications where he has condemned other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 30, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



What ReMax wouldn't give for such a salesperson on staff!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2013)

Auteur said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



*That's one heck of a concession- asking for only 22% of what was once their country. *

That's one heck of an Ottoman concession.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


What truth do you speak about Gush Emunin?

"THE RELIGIOUS WAR: Gush Emunim adherents and other Israeli religious zealots plan it. They're active in politics, hold seats in the Knesset, are Netanyahu government coalition partners (including Shas, United Torah and Yisrael Beiteinu) and are prominently represented in Israel's military throughout its ranks and rabbinate. 

"Chief military rabbi, Brigadier General Avichai Rontzki, called Operation Cast Lead a 'religious war' in which it was 'immoral' to show mercy to an enemy of 'murderers'. 

"Many others feel the same way, prominently among them graduates of Hesder Yeshivat schools that *combine extremist religious indoctrination with military service to defend the Jewish state*."

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 30, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



What did I tell you about mischaracterizing my points?  

Now you're in a time out.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


*Is English your first language?*

"The earlier influence of fundamentalist Rabbi Abraham Kook (1865-1935), or Kuk, was significant. He preached Jewish supremacy and said: 'The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.' 

"His teachings helped create the settler movement, and his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, founded the extremist Gush Emunim (GE) under the slogan: 'The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.'"

"Like the elder Kook, GE sees state power as a way forward to a new messianic era. *It believes that God created the world for Jews*. Others are lesser beings. Greater Israel belongs to Jews alone, and holy wars are acceptable to attain it.

"Kook was Israel's first chief rabbi. In his honour, and to continue his teachings, the extremist Merkaz Harav (the Rabbi's Centre) was founded in 1924 as a yeshiva or fundamentalist religious college. It teaches that, '*non-Jews living under Jewish law in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) must either be enslaved as water carriers and wood hewers, or banished, or exterminated.'"*

"It gets no more extremist than that, and highlights the dangers for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. Their lives and welfare are being sacrificed for a Greater Israel of Jews alone."

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel

*Do you believe God created the world for Jews?*


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 1, 2013)

Since you are so adept at cutting and pasting, why don't you go ahead and cut and paste the post where I said that "God created the world for Jews."

Go ahead.

We'll wait.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Since you are so adept at cutting and pasting, why don't you go ahead and cut and paste the post where I said that "God created the world for Jews."
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> We'll wait.


"Like the elder Kook, GE sees state power as a way forward to a new messianic era. *It believes that God created the world for Jews*. Others are lesser beings. Greater Israel belongs to Jews alone, and holy wars are acceptable to attain it."

Is English your first language?

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## toastman (Jul 1, 2013)

George, he asked you to quote where HE said that.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 1, 2013)

Guess English isn't George's first language.

I'm waiting for you to cut and paste from one of MY POSTS.  If you can't, then you should simply apologize to me for mischaracterizing my position, and then we can move on.

Still waiting.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2013)

toastman said:


> George, he asked you to quote where HE said that.


Toast...I never claimed he said it; I asked if he agreed with *a quotation* I attributed to Stephen Lendman in Al-Ahram Weekly:

"Like the elder Kook, GE sees state power as a way forward to a new messianic era. *It believes that God created the world for Jews*. Others are lesser beings. Greater Israel belongs to Jews alone, and holy wars are acceptable to attain it."

Apparently HB67 doesn't want to answer my question so he resorts to typical hasbara deception.

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## toastman (Jul 1, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > George, he asked you to quote where HE said that.
> ...



I'm sure there are several hardcore religious extremists who believe that, but VERY FEW. It is not something that is taught to Jewish children in school and it is certainly not taught to children by their parents.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Guess English isn't George's first language.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to cut and paste from one of MY POSTS.  If you can't, then you should simply apologize to me for mischaracterizing my position, and then we can move on.
> 
> Still waiting.


I'm guessing I'll wait much longer for your answer to my simple question: Do you agree with the truth according to Gush Emunim as contained in the *following quote*:

"Like the elder Kook, GE sees state power as a way forward to a new messianic era. *It believes that God created the world for Jews*. Others are lesser beings. Greater Israel belongs to Jews alone, and holy wars are acceptable to attain it."

Or did you mischaracterize your ability to speak the truth?

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Do you have any idea what percentage of the IDF believe God created the world for Jews?
What percentage of Hesder Yeshivat graduates hold such beliefs?


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 1, 2013)

I suspect the 'percentage is no greater than the percentage of Christians who believe in the 'Serpent Seed' doctrine.


----------



## toastman (Jul 1, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The belief that God created the world for Jews???
I'd say .000001% , if that

You've never been to Israel, you've likely never met an IDF soldiers and you have no idea about what is taught in the IDF, so why make such outlandish claims .
I am Jewish, I went to Jewish elementary and Jewish high school. I've been to Israel over ten times and i have well over 50 relatives there (like 98% of my family lives there). All of them were in the army, and some are still in the army. I have NEVER once heard this claim that 'God created the world for Jews',. Like, never.

Please George, stop trying to vilify Jewish people by bringing up this crap, it's simply not true.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 1, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Guess English isn't George's first language.
> ...



Obviously I don't view things that way, dumbass.  I've never even met anyone who does.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2013)

"Institute Professor Noam A. Chomsky and scholar Israel Shahak addressed the issues of Jewish fundamentalism in the domestic and foreign policy of Israel in a forum last Thursday (11/'94).

"The pair spoke to a full crowd in 26-100 and met with opposition from several members of the audience when individuals had the opportunity to voice comments and ask questions..."

"Audience members had the opportunity to voice their questions and comments after Chomsky and Shahak spoke. Some accused Chomsky and Shahak of exaggerating and not speaking the truth. One audience member called Chomsky a liar.

"Another accused Chomsky of promoting 'a cesspool of misinformation.' 

"Echoing the words of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin about Baruch Goldstein, the Jew who last February murdered 29 Palestinians in a mosque in Israel, the audience member said to Chomsky, 'We spit you out with every bit of power we have.'

"Chomsky responded, 'The feeling is mutual.'

"In reply to the audience's hostility, Shahak said that Jews who perpetuate a 'denial of common humanity' are "Jewish Nazis."

"Another audience member angrily responded to Shahak, 'You were lucky you survived [the Holocaust], but 6 million Jews didn't.'

"Several others said that Shahak's use of the phrase 'Jewish Nazis' was disrespectful to the memory of the Holocaust. 

"*Shahak maintained that 'Jews can become Nazis.'"*

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N55/chomsky.55n.html


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> I suspect the 'percentage is no greater than the percentage of Christians who believe in the 'Serpent Seed' doctrine.


On what data is your "suspicion" based on?

"Hesder service usually lasts a total of five years, within which participants are officially soldiers in the IDF. Through those five years, 16 months are dedicated to actual army service, comprising both training and active duty. 

"In some Hesder Yeshivas service lasts six years of which 24 months are dedicated to actual army service. Almost all Hesder Yeshiva students serve in the army as combat soldiers. 

"The remainder of the time in Hesder is designated for full time Torah study. 

"Some students study for several years after this mandatory term. Yeshivot Hesder typically have 150&#8211;300 students; some of the larger yeshivot have up to 500 students while some have fewer than 100 students."

Hesder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 2, 2013)

George... prove you're NOT a platypus.

That is, after all, how this works, right?  One person makes an absurd accusation, and the other person then has to disprove it.

So... prove you're not a platypus.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Toast, I'm not trying to vilify all Jewish people; I'm trying to point out to everyone who has never visited Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza how biased some Jewish people (and their supporters) are when it comes to criticizing racist, religious fundamentalism and the role it plays in Palestine.

Your side is absolutely right to criticize racist religious Arabs for their desire to exterminate the Jews in Israel; however, imho, you do yourself a disservice when you don't condemn the significant number of elite Jews in Israel, like the chief military rabbi who labelled Operation Cast Lead a "religious war."

"Chief military rabbi, Brigadier General Avichai Rontzki, called Operation Cast Lead a 'religious war' in which it was 'immoral' to show mercy to an enemy of 'murderers'. *Many others feel the same way, prominently among them graduates of Hesder Yeshivat schools* that combine extremist religious indoctrination with military service to defend the Jewish state."

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel

Would you be surprised to find out the biggest threat to Israel comes from its most religious citizens?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> George... prove you're NOT a platypus.
> 
> That is, after all, how this works, right?  One person makes an absurd accusation, and the other person then has to disprove it.
> 
> So... prove you're not a platypus.


Only in the minds of ESL hasbara hacks does a platypus bear the slightest resemblance to Avraham Stern:

"During World War II, *Lehi initially sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany*, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.[2] 

"On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis.[2] During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon 'nationalist and totalitarian principles'.[2] 

"After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism."

Lehi (group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > George... prove you're NOT a platypus.
> ...








I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion with you until you prove to us, with verifiable sources, that you are not a platypus.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Or maybe you're just another timid propagandist"

"In June 1948, with hundreds of Palestinian villages already &#8216;cleansed&#8217;, senior Jewish National Fund official Yosef Weitz met with Israel&#8217;s first Prime Minister Ben-Gurion to discuss recommendations made by the so-called 'Transfer Committee'.

The five specific proposals were to destroy villages, prevent Palestinians cultivating their land, settle Jews in some of the empty communities, pass relevant legislation, and *employ propaganda against a return. A*ccording to Weitz,    

"Ben-Gurion 'agreed to the whole line'.        

A new hasbara campaign: Countering the 'Arab Narrative' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 2, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...


Heres the property. Wheres "Palestine"?

1947-1948 Map.


Map (enlarged) - UN Partition & The First Arab/Israeli War 1947 - 1948 - 175 - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## toastman (Jul 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I don't agree that they're the biggest threat, but I do believe that the religious extremists on both sides are one of the main factors as to why peaceis a long way away, if it even reaches there.
Do you believe that being a big threat to the country is the same as being the main deterrent in a peace deal being reached ?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Good question.
I would think the biggest threat to both nations is their religious fundamentalists.
Since the monopoly of violence is controlled by Jews, I don't see any potential for negotiations among equals leading to a two-state solution.
Do you think religion could divide the Jewish state, leading to the world's first civil war with nuclear weapons available to both sides?


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 3, 2013)

George I think your anti-religious mania is preventing you from understanding just how tiny is the extreme end of the religious fringe upon which you've fixated there.....  the entire idea of 'supremacism' is actually ANATHEMA to mainstream and normative Judaism (ie, Reform, Recon, Conservative, Orthodox 'streams' and Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrachi cultures) .

I'm tired of your pushing this rabid extremist swill as though it's some 'legit' part of a discussion.  LOOK at you sources, all avowed enemies of the State of Israel, and IMHO of the Jewish People (yeah, yeah, technically the individuals you've cited are the children of Jewish parents, but they seem to be stuck in the 'rebellious' phase).

No one has denied that extremist nutbars exist within the Jewish religious community.  I DO wonder at your continual attempt to focus on this minute group of far extremists, especially since you've already found it necessary to try to explain that you're not attempting to demonize the Jewish people as a whole.....  Not that I think you have the slightest concern for how insulting or disgusting your words are to any of us, LOL!

I'm not the least bit interested in discussing your malignant fantasies regarding the future of Israel nor the Jewish People.  You'll have to proceed with such daydreams without me.........


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 3, 2013)

georgephillip, _et al,_

Dangerous ground.



georgephillip said:


> Good question.
> I would think the biggest threat to both nations is their religious fundamentalists.
> Since the monopoly of violence is controlled by Jews, I don't see any potential for negotiations among equals leading to a two-state solution.
> Do you think religion could divide the Jewish state, leading to the world's first civil war with nuclear weapons available to both sides?


*(COMMENT)*

There probably is very little question to the idea that "religious extremism" is a major regional threat.  Clearly there is a potential for Sunni 'vs' Shi'ite _(Hezbollah, Iran, Syria in conflict with Hamas, Jordanian, Saudi Arabia)_; as well as the wider Jewish 'vs' Islamic rivalry.

While I totally disagree that Israel has a "monopoly of violence;" the two-state solution _(however many options there are now)_ is contingent on the premise that the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) evolves to the degree that Israel can withdrawal without fear of the HoAP re-building an insurgency that threatens the sovereign integrity of Israel.

A nuclear conflict is a dead-end for both cultures _(Jewish 'vs' Islamic)_.  In such an exchange, the consequences will be devastating for the heritage of both sides.  In addition to the threat it would pose to every religious site on the map in the Levant, it would firmly place the Regional Arabs in a culturally downward spiral with all the Allied Powers stepping in to quell the disturbance.  It would probably spell the end of Islamic countries and put an end to all the Middle East and Persian Gulf nations.  Remember, in WWI, four Empires fell.  And no one is going to allow an Arab Nation, with a past history of association with terrorism, to have a nuclear weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Anything is possible, but I doubt that would occur. Then again, I don't have a crystal ball


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> George I think your anti-religious mania is preventing you from understanding just how tiny is the extreme end of the religious fringe upon which you've fixated there.....  the entire idea of 'supremacism' is actually ANATHEMA to mainstream and normative Judaism (ie, Reform, Recon, Conservative, Orthodox 'streams' and Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Mizrachi cultures) .
> 
> I'm tired of your pushing this rabid extremist swill as though it's some 'legit' part of a discussion.  LOOK at you sources, all avowed enemies of the State of Israel, and IMHO of the Jewish People (yeah, yeah, technically the individuals you've cited are the children of Jewish parents, but they seem to be stuck in the 'rebellious' phase).
> 
> ...


*Israel Under Siege Again?*

Your version of "legit" discussion always assumes that Israel has no partner for peace because Arabs refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, eternally conflating the standard diplomatic practice that states are recognized, but not privileged sectors within them.

"Nutbar" Jews have a disproportionate impact in this war of ideas because their state has an overwhelming military advantage over its occupied subjects. If the prospect of "malignant fantasies" truly repulses you, imagine how it feels to those living under Israel's malignant mushroom-cloud reality.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip, _et al,_
> 
> Dangerous ground.
> 
> ...


Rocco...how can anyone as educated and experienced as yourself honestly claim that Israel does not possess a monopoly of violence over those it occupies?

*"See also: Israel and weapons of mass destruction*
Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons[6][7] and to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them.[1] 

"It is one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[8]"

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What final solution do you see for Israel's 21st Century Samson Complex?

"Some important Twentieth century Hebrew poems have also been written about the Bible hero. More recently, elite Israeli combat units have been named 'Samson', and the Israeli nuclear program was called the 'Samson Option'.[1]

"Noam Chomsky and others have said Israel suffers from a 'Samson complex' which could lead to the destruction of itself as well as its Arab enemies.[1]" 

Samson in popular culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

George, why do you think Israel acquired nuclear weapons ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 4, 2013)

georgephillip, _et al,_

The use of Max Weber terminology is both confusing and yet understandable for people who understand the context of "a community successfully claiming authority on legitimate use of physical force over a given territory."

But one has to also remember that some people _{politely using PF Tinmore and SherriMunnerlyn (Tinmore/Munnerly) as author examples}_ have made some convincing arguments that the Arab/Palestinian is legitimately resisting occupation and therefore entitled to use any and means necessary to repel the occupation force.

If you concur with the Tinmore/Munnerly philosophy, this would put the "monopoly of violence" on the side of the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) as the "source of legitimate physical force." 



georgephillip said:


> Rocco...how can anyone as educated and experienced as yourself honestly claim that Israel does not possess a monopoly of violence over those it occupies?


*(COMMENT)*

Rather than the Weber Concept _(monopoly of violence)_, which is not really a strategy, I believe you should consider a broader analysis.   From my perspective, you are clearly trying to suggest that Israel has maintained military superiority; which should not be confused with a monopoly of violence.

From the HoAP perspective, there has been a shift in strategies form the "overwhelming Force Concept" _(multiple Armies attacking from multiple directions)_ to a gradual assumption of Clausewitz concept of "Primary Trinity" _[(1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy)]_.

From the Israeli standpoint, they have chosen to integrate several strategies:


Strategy of Persistance strategy  Destroy the means by which the HoAP sustains itself and supports itself.

Exhaustion Strategy  A strategy targets resources of a country, in its ability to sustain the insurgency.

Denial  A strategy reduces HoAP ability to wage war, militarily, politically, economically, and financially.

Decapitation  A strategy of induced paralysis by targeting political leadership _(C3I - Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence)_.



georgephillip said:


> *"See also: Israel and weapons of mass destruction*  Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons[6][7] and to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them.[1]
> 
> "It is one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[8]"


*(COMMENT)*

Having a nuclear capacity is as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage.  For all practical purposes, the State of Israel, even if it has such an advantage, cannot use them until they are at the point of total destruction (the last bullet of the last battle).  The NPT has no real play in the Deployment Policy and Strategy of a Nuclear Device.



georgephillip said:


> What final solution do you see for Israel's 21st Century Samson Complex?
> 
> "Some important Twentieth century Hebrew poems have also been written about the Bible hero. More recently, elite Israeli combat units have been named 'Samson', and the Israeli nuclear program was called the 'Samson Option'.[1]
> 
> "Noam Chomsky and others have said Israel suffers from a 'Samson complex' which could lead to the destruction of itself as well as its Arab enemies.[1]"


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Masada or Samson complex _(destruction of itself as well as its Arab enemies)_ is something the Arab League should take seriously.  What is the "worst case scenario?"  _(The last bullets of the Last Battle!)_  Faced with eminent destruction and the end of your cultural home, what would you destroy of your enemy to make the balance equal (to the extent possible)?

Jerusalem
Mecca
Medina
Qom
Karabala
Or, would you go after the enemy strongholds:

Amman
Baghdad
Beirut
Cairo
Damascus
Riyadh
Tehran
OR!  Since it is "eminent destruction and the end of your cultural home" - before your eyes close - would you do them all?

If you are the Arab League, or the senior leadership within the Islamic culture, what consequences would you be willing to accept as reasonable?

And, if you are the former Allied Powers, given the past history of behaviors, would it be worth intervening?  Or would the prevailing opinion be to let the chips fall where they may, and just deal with the remainder and put it all under trusteeship after the guns draw silent? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

Rocco, concerning the legit arguments of Tinmore and Sherri stating that the Palestinians have resisted the occupation, can you elaborate on that please? What examples did they give ?
As far as I'm concerned, launching rockets into unarmed civilian areas is not resisting.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> Rocco, concerning the legit arguments of Tinmore and Sherri stating that the Palestinians have resisted the occupation, can you elaborate on that please? What examples did they give ?
> As far as I'm concerned, launching rockets into unarmed civilian areas is not resisting.



This should be good.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

First, I think I used the term: "convincing arguments," relative to the Tinmore/Munnerly position.  And then made an association between their arguments and the wider Max Weber concept, as an underlying "source of legitimate physical force;" in the form of a rhetorical question: "If you concur."

I don't buy-in to the argument.  I tend to be more aligned with the SECGEN when he says:  "Nothing can justify terrorism  ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." 



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco, concerning the legit arguments of Tinmore and Sherri stating that the Palestinians have resisted the occupation, can you elaborate on that please? What examples did they give ?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

These are just a few statements, in recent times, that come to mind.  Remembering that my concept of "resisting occupation" is different that the Tinmore/Munnerly concept; and what is appropriate resistance.  See more at a similar discussion on this view.   #105 (permalink)



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Holy smokescreen, Batman.
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

The problem with Tinmore and Sherri, is that they don't know what 'terrorism' really is..
They consider what the IDF and IAF does to be terrorism,...im guessing its because the casualties on the Palestinian side are always way higher..


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

But after reading Sherri's posts since I join USMB almost a year ago, I find Sherri's opinions to be useless...she constantly lies and gets caught up in her own lies


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco, concerning the legit arguments of Tinmore and Sherri stating that the Palestinians have resisted the occupation, can you elaborate on that please? What examples did they give ?
> ...



Maybe you can explain how launching rockets into civilian areas is 'resisting'


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> George, why do you think Israel acquired nuclear weapons ?


Quite possibly, for all the right reasons, Toast.

"Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was 'nearly obsessed' with obtaining nuclear weapons to prevent the Holocaust from recurring. He stated, 'What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people'.[17] 

"Ben-Gurion decided to recruit Jewish scientists from abroad even before the end of the 1948 Arab&#8211;Israeli War that established Israel's independence."

What advantage do you believe Israel gains from its policy of nuclear ambiguity?

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > George, why do you think Israel acquired nuclear weapons ?
> ...



That's actually a good question. To be honest, I don't have a clue. 
Weather they confirm or deny it, does it really make a difference considering everyone knows they have them ? I don't think so personally
Israel has an ambiguity policy for targeted assassinations as well 
When they are question about the alleged assassination, they don't confirm nor deny it (btw, does the word 'ambiguity' apply to this as well ?) 
I don't think anyone knows the reason , except Israel. Consider it an executive decision


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> The problem with Tinmore and Sherri, is that they don't know what 'terrorism' really is..
> They consider what the IDF and IAF does to be terrorism,...im guessing its because the casualties on the Palestinian side are always way higher..



It is an Israeli propaganda campaign.


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with Tinmore and Sherri, is that they don't know what 'terrorism' really is..
> ...



Tinmore, a few months ago I questioned you about your thoughts about Hamas not being a terrorist organization. I remember asking you something along the lines of "If Hamas is not a terrorist organization, then do you believe that there are no terrorist groups in the ME?"
You answered that "sure there are terrorist organizations in the ME, but Hamas is not one of them"
So I ask you now, what groups in the ME do you consider to be terrorists?

As for calling Hamas a terrorist organization being an Israeli propaganda campaign, what about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#International_designation_of_Hamas

Is it an Australian propaganda campaign too ? 
A U.S propaganda campaign ?
A Canadian propaganda campaign ?
A Norwegian propaganda campaign ?
A Turkish propaganda campaign ?
A Japanese propaganda campaign ?
a Jordanian propaganda campaign ?
A Russian propaganda campaign ?
A British propaganda campaign ?


You have just been....ToastOWNED !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Is it an Australian propaganda campaign too ? 
A U.S propaganda campaign ?
A Canadian propaganda campaign ?
A Norwegian propaganda campaign ?


> Norway was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and Norwegian officials have met with Hamas representatives on several occasions. "We know that the USA and the EU have legal obligations since they have Hamas on their terrorist list. We must be able to take an independent decision about contact," Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre responded to a 2006 United States' attempt to dissuade Norwegian contact with Hamas.[378]


A Turkish propaganda campaign ?


> The Turkish government met with Hamas leaders in February 2006, after the organization's victory in the Palestinian elections. In 2010, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo&#287;an described Hamas as "resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land."


A Japanese propaganda campaign ?
a Jordanian propaganda campaign ?
A Russian propaganda campaign ?


> Russia does not designate Hamas a terrorist organisation, and held direct talks with Hamas in 2006, after Hamas won the Palestine elections, stating that it did so to press Hamas to reject violence and recognise Israel.


A British propaganda campaign ?




> You have just been....ToastOWNED !



*Not!*

There are almost 200 countries in the world. Only a few hold the* political opinion* that Hamas are terrorists.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> toastman, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> First, I think I used the term: "convincing arguments," relative to the Tinmore/Munnerly position.  And then made an association between their arguments and the wider Max Weber concept, as an underlying "source of legitimate physical force;" in the form of a rhetorical question: "If you concur."
> 
> ...



Good post, thanks.

BTW, What would be an appropriate and effective way for the Palestinians to resist the occupation?


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Not all 200 countries have designated them as anything.
The thing is, Terrorism has a definition. Hamas fits that definition. 
Calling Hamas a terrorist organization is not an opinion, it's a fact.

*Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).*

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying Hamas does not fit into that description ??????


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Tinmore, I have two questions for you, please answer BOTH in your next post, as you always seem to answer some of the questions I ask:

1) What do YOU think would be an effective way for the Palestinians to resist the 'occupation'

2) If Hamas is not a terrorist organization, which other Islamic groups in the ME are?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Is defending your country a religious, political, or ideological goal?

I thought self defense was a legal right.

BTW, nationals of an occupying power are not "civilians."

So no, they are not terrorists.


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

Since they don't have a country, your first statement is false, AGAIN !
Do they use violence to create terror? (suicide bombings in the past, rockets into civilian areas now). YES, they do !
do they do it for a religious, political or ideological goal? YES. 
Do they commit their acts of violence with disregard for non - combatants (civilians) ? FUCK YES
Oh, and most, if not all of their terrorist acts have taken place in cities that are not occupied. Oh but wait, you consider all of Israel occupied lol !!!!

Show me any document or article that says any place in Israel that's not in the West Bank, is occupied


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

And finally, how is launching rockets into civilian populated ares defending ones self ??? What are they defending themselves from ?? DO you even know what the word defend means ???

But the most important question of all, why must you make such a fool of yourself ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> Since they don't have a country, your first statement is false, AGAIN !
> Do they use violence to create terror? (suicide bombings in the past, rockets into civilian areas now). YES, they do !
> do they do it for a religious, political or ideological goal? YES.
> Do they commit their acts of violence with disregard for non - combatants (civilians) ? FUCK YES
> ...



https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

So you type in '1948 occupied palestine' in google, then you give me the link to the search results ?

That's weak.

Show me an article or document that shows all of Israel to be occupied, now, in 2013. Or at the very least in this century


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> So you type in '1948 occupied palestine' in google, then you give me the link to the search results ?
> 
> That's weak.
> 
> Show me an article or document that shows all of Israel to be occupied, now, in 2013. Or at the very least in this century



Many of those results are from the last few years.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There are some things I know.  But, there are an infinite number of things of which I know nothing.

Examples:  Nonviolent Revolution Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Nonviolent Resistance, Reform, & Revolution



P F Tinmore said:


> Good post, thanks.
> 
> BTW, What would be an appropriate and effective way for the Palestinians to resist the occupation?


*(COMMENT)*

Non-violent resistance is something I know very little about _(lack of imagination)_.  I can only tell you about countermeasures relative to violent protest, armed resistance, and insurgency campaigns.  

Anything I could contribute would merely be a regurgitation of famous leaders like Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King.


			
				What is Nonviolent resistance? said:
			
		

> Nonviolent resistance _(or nonviolent action)_ comprises the practice of applying power to achieve socio-political goals through symbolic protests, economic or political noncooperation, civil disobedience and other methods, without the use of violence. It has the guiding principle of nonviolence.
> 
> Passive resistance has a similar meaning, implying resistance by inertia or non-energetic compliance, as opposed to resistance by active antagonism.
> Like other strategies for social change, nonviolent action can appear in various forms and degrees. It may include, for example, such varied forms as information wars, protest art, lobbying, tax refusal, boycotts or sanctions, legal/diplomatic wrestling, material sabotage, underground railroads, principled refusal of awards/honours, picketing, vigiling, leafletting, and/or general strikes.
> ...



The Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) being used to support the Palestinian position is Nonviolent resistance.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > So you type in '1948 occupied palestine' in google, then you give me the link to the search results ?
> ...



And the ducking continues. Show me some sort of document that proves yuour claim that all of ISrael is occupied 3


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Do you actually believe the horse shit you spew?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> And finally, how is launching rockets into civilian populated ares defending ones self ??? What are they defending themselves from ?? DO you even know what the word defend means ???
> 
> But the most important question of all, why must you make such a fool of yourself ?



The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by international law.

What part of that confuses you?


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

Occupying power?? We're not talking about the West Bank 
What part of that confuses you ?


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


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



Sometimes I wonder the same thing


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


> Occupying power?? We're not talking about the West Bank
> What part of that confuses you ?



None of it.


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > And finally, how is launching rockets into civilian populated ares defending ones self ??? What are they defending themselves from ?? DO you even know what the word defend means ???
> ...



Once again, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE that suggests the Jews living in cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are part of an occupying power.

Everyone who reads your posts become just a little bit dumber. May God have mercy on your soul


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

Where does it say here that the nationals of tel aviv or haifa for example are part of the occupying power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 4, 2013)

toastman said:


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



I have...several times...in great detail.

You need to keep up.


----------



## toastman (Jul 4, 2013)

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


> No, you havent.
> 
> Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land



Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There are some things I know.  But, there are an infinite number of things of which I know nothing.
> 
> ...



There has been a lot of non violent resistance. However, the Lame Stream Media usually ignores it.

*The invisibility of Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance in the New York Times*

The fact that thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis are together employing nonviolent tactics similar to those of the U.S. civil rights movement and the South African anti-Apartheid movement would come as surprising and welcome news to most Americans. Americans are largely unaware of the struggling but vibrant grassroots nonviolent movement in Palestine, because the U.S. corporate media prefers a simple, flawed story of Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli retaliation.

In the U.S. media, Palestinians generally arent allowed to speak for themselves or to articulate their historical narrative. Israelis, however, are permitted to speak, to explain the Israeli experience and even to explain about Palestinians. As a result, the Israeli story is known in the U.S. while Palestinians are dehumanized.

The reporting by The New York Times, often cited as the standard for U.S. media, typifies the problem. The Times publishes daily news articles on Israel/Palestine, including countless articles about armed Palestinian resistance. However, the New York Times and the U.S. media more generally almost never report on what 99.5% of Palestinians have done every day of their lives for the last 38 years  nonviolently resist Israeli occupation.

The invisibility of Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance in the New York Times | The Electronic Intifada


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Interesting!



P F Tinmore said:


> Is defending your country a religious, political, or ideological goal?


*(COMMENT)*

Defending a country is to defend and protect sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


> I thought self defense was a legal right.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, as a matter of fact, the right of self-defense is a legal right under Chapter VII, Article 51, ("Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.")

Israel is a member of the UN; and has been since 1949.  It has a right to self-defense.  The State of Palestine has tentative recognition since 2012.  It has a right to self-defense, accept that is was in an "Occupied Condition" since before statehood.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, nationals of an occupying power are not "civilians."


*(COMMENT)*

This is incorrect.  

While it can be argued that they do not fall into the status of GCIV Protected Persons because they are not in the hands of a Party to the conflict, but they protected from intentionally directing attacks under the International Criminal Code.



			
				Article 8 - War Crimes said:
			
		

> (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
> (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such
> or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;​
> _*SOURCE:*_
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> So no, they are not terrorists.


*(COMMENT)*

Internationally, it is difficult to establish terrorism, except by deed.  But in the case of Hamas, a government and excepted terrorist organization, there is a second set of crimes to apply.



			
				Article 8 - Crime of Aggression said:
			
		

> For the purpose of paragraph 1, act of aggression means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
> 
> (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
> 
> (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.​



And, of course, 



			
				Part II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism said:
			
		

> To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ United Nations General Assembly Adopts Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy - United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism



Israel, as a member of the UN, has a responsibility to "step-up national efforts and bilateral, sub-regional, regional and international co-operation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls, in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and to prevent and detect the *illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives*, nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect."

There is no question that the Hostile Arab/Palestinian, has a past history of terrorist activity.  It cannot be the case that this is questionably.  



			
				HAMAS Description said:
			
		

> HAMAS has a paramilitary arm, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which, beginning in the 1990s, has conducted many anti-Israeli attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. These have included large-scale terrorist bombings against Israeli civilian targets, as well as small-arms attacks, improvised roadside explosives, and the launching of rockets into Israel.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) - Terrorist Groups



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No, you havent.
> ...



Still nothing, eh?? 

You failed miserably


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


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



My documentation stands until someone posts something to supersede it.


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Except you posted nothing

Funny how you make it seem like you proved your point that Israel has no land or civilians. A member of the U.N has no land or civilians hahah
Look at Roccos posts above, he did a way better job then me at making you look like a fool. Would love to see your response to that


Also, care to provide any documentation from this century, or maybe an article, or even a current map that proves your claims ? Anything??? I would love to see something that suggests cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are under occupation. IF this were true, surely there would be some sort of article to prove it, no ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Interesting!
> 
> ...



That may not be true or even relevant.

An occupation may deny the exercise of rights but it does not negate them.

The LoN determined that Palestine was a newly created state. After the mandate left Palestine the Palestinians declared independence from the mandate inside its existing international borders. Five states recognized the independent state of Palestine. The UN was notified of this declaration.

The following year the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine was not officially occupied until after its declaration of independence.




> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Rocco posted nothing to refute my claims.

You must have missed the pages of hits on the Google search saying 1948 occupied Palestine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



LOL and what does that prove ??? You probably didn't even read them... 

I've searched the internet and could not find anything to back up your idiotic claims
Like I said, if those claims were true, surely there would be some sort of unbiased source to prove it.

However, those sources don't exist. 

and Rocco did refute your claims concerning what he quoted from your post, and you know it too. But you are a sore loser and cannot admit it. 

What I find funny is your continuous claims that you have proved your claims. 

Let me make it easier for you, show me an article about Israel or Palestine that back up your claims


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Hmm, nothing in here to back up your claims



State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weird, nothing in here either

Surely if your claims were true, they would be mentioned in the links I just posted??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


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



What did I claim that Rocco proved not to be true?


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

He is correct.  At the implementation of the Armistice, the Israelis had assumed control over more area than the original GA Resolution 181(II) has allotted.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No, you havent.
> ...





			
				A/AC.24/SR.45  5 May 1949 said:
			
		

> If the present structure of Israel did not conform to those conditions, two courses were open to the Assembly: either to make the membership of Israel dependent upon acceptance of the original recommendations of the United Nations, or to admit it notwithstanding its failure to comply with those recommendations, thereby cancelling or revoking them. Should the Assembly adopt the latter course, it must be fully aware of the implications of such a course for future decisions of a similar nature and of its effect on the general situation in the Near East, for the present structure of Israel did not in fact conform to the wishes expressed in the previous resolutions of the Assembly; it was not the same as the Jewish State, the existence of which had been sanctioned by that body in November 1947 and for which additional requirements had been laid down in the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 (194 (III)). The differences were fundamental and could not be dismissed or condoned as secondary factors. Admission of Israel notwithstanding those essential and highly significant differences would be tantamount to the revocation of the previous Assembly decisions, the frustration of the human aspirations expressed by the highest spokesmen of great religions and the violation of the deepest spiritual sentiments of a large portion of mankind.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949






> UN Security Council Resolution 69 (1949). Resolution of 4 March 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When Israel originally requested admission, the allotment was outline in Annex A (Map Sheet) and Part II - Section B of the of GA Resolution of 181(II).  However, by the time the UN Security Council and General Assembly began to reach a consensus, the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control.  The area was bigger than that originally partitioned out. 

It was not until the Treaties and the Armistices that boundaries were established.  It makes no difference, because the State of Palestine is based on the boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as observed in December, 2012.  It becomes interesting history, but not relevant to today.

In May 1948, when the Arabs attacked, the Resolution 181(II), and Annex A, boundaries applied.  The advance of the Arab Armies constituted Aggression and the defense of Israel was pursuant to UN Charter Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense).  Since that time, the boundaries expanded.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

Rocco, thanks for the link.

A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949



> The State of Israel, in its present form, directly contravened the previous recommendations of the United Nations in at least three important respects: in its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees, on the delimitation of its territorial boundaries, and on the question of Jerusalem.
> 
> The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. *Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations,* had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.



If you read the entire document you will have only one question.

Why did they accept fucking Israel as a member of the UN?

Seriously, it does not make any sense.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What is the base question?  I'm confused.



P F Tinmore said:


> What did I claim that Rocco proved not to be true?


*(COMMENT)*

How does this relate to the basic issue?  Is there some claim by the Palestinians that relates to this issue?  

The territories situated between the Green Line [...] and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories [...] have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. (see A/ES-10/273)​
But we already knew that.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is the base question?  I'm confused.
> 
> ...





> and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate



What does all of that mean? The mandate had no borders. After the mandate left, Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.

It looks like someone is trying to confuse the issue.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> He is correct.  At the implementation of the Armistice, the Israelis had assumed control over more area than the original GA Resolution 181(II) has allotted.
> 
> ...





> the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control.



Indeed, made its* occupied* territory larger.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> thanks for the link.


*(COMMENT)*

No problem.  I use to live with this stuff.



P F Tinmore said:


> If you read the entire document you will have only one question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It makes perfect sense if you understand and accept the basic imperative.



			
				Preamble: San Remo Convention 1920 said:
			
		

> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive



The imperative was to establish the Jewish National Home.  It wasn't to apportion the land based on some demographic.  The Western Powers knew that once a Jewish State was established [GA Resolution 181(II) _and implemented by the _Security Council Resolution 69] that Jewish demographics would increase by huge numbers.

The Allied Powers saw a need, and sometimes, the protection of a minority culture is more important than that of a enemy population under mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the criminals threw the natives under the bus and gave Palestine to foreigners.



> It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.
> 
> The right to self-determination - IHL


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 5, 2013)

*Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish Peoples clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandates expiry on May 14-15, 1948. 

Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. 

The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the Palestinian Authority. Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. 

Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere  in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa  which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. 

There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the Palestinian Authority where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to de-create or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another states territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicants request for membership in the world body.*


.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Actually, over time, the Occupied Territory decreased.



P F Tinmore said:


> > the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, made its *occupied* territory larger.


*(COMMENT)*

As a result of the failed invasion by the Arab Armies and the ineffective insurrection by Hostile Arab/Palestinians (HoAP), the consequence was to reduce the potential for the Arab State from the GA Resolution 181(II) apportionment, to the Occupied West Bank and unOccupied Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Actually, over time, the Occupied Territory decreased.
> 
> ...



?????


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

You are entangled in the cause.



P F Tinmore said:


> So the criminals threw the natives under the bus and gave Palestine to foreigners.


*(COMMENT)*

The UN offered both sides a partition.  The Jewish Agency accepted.  The Arab Palestinian did not.



P F Tinmore said:


> > It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct.  The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) is attempting to deny the Jewish State their right to self-determination by using armed force and terrorism over the last 65 years.

The HoAP is attempting to use violence, and the threat of violence, to achieve political goals and agenda's that are in contravention to the UN decisions on the future of Palestine. 

The HoAP has a history of organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

You need to get to bed, Rocco, you are babbling incoherently.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to get to bed, Rocco, you are babbling incoherently.



It is you Tinny who has an inability to grasp simple facts.  Perhaps you should have a sleep.


.


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to get to bed, Rocco, you are babbling incoherently.



But Tinmore, it is you who is babbling hahaha


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You need to get to bed, Rocco, you are babbling incoherently.
> ...



Tinmore is just frustrated because Rocco keeps dismantling his logic . Hahaha.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

Good night. I will read y'all's slimefest in the morning. Have fun.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Logic is not what is is.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Good night. I will read y'all's slimefest in the morning. Have fun.



Amazing that it takes two of us to get you to go to sleep.


----------



## bayoubill (Jul 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"
> 
> "Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, allegations began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers.[18]
> 
> ...



and we should care about this thing that transpired more'n 50 years ago because... um... what...?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> more important than that of a enemy population



The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They weren't bothering anyone. How did they become the "enemy population?"


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Maybe because they don't take Saturday night baths on a regular schedule. Ever think of that? I do.


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



No one said they were bothering anyone....


----------



## toastman (Jul 5, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Good night. I will read y'all's slimefest in the morning. Have fun.



You must have slept like a baby after several hours of spewing lies about Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Also, I getting every single one of your arguments dismantled must have made you sleepy too. 
I just re-read your posts in the last few pages of this thread, and I must say, you are one bitter person. Not only that, but you provided ZERO, that's right, 0  evidence to back up any of your idiotic claims, while Rocco posted links for most of his arguments. 

Not only do you stink at debating, but your knowledge of this conflict is extremely distorted and your lies are not shared by any of the other pro - Palestinians here. In other words, you're the only person that believes the shit you post. Actually, I find it hard to believe that you do even believe half the drivel you post. There;s no way anyone with more than half a brain and knowledge of the conflict dating back to 1947 could believe that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]

This guy is talking about you


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 5, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Good night. I will read y'all's slimefest in the morning. Have fun.
> ...



At least you are honest in expressing how you feel.


----------



## toastman (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm always honest, unlike you . You should try it sometimes.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2013)

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War, or Second Arab-Israeli War[13][14]... was a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.[15]"
> ...


"Egyptian sovereignty and ownership of the Canal had been confirmed by the United States and the United Nations. In retirement Eden maintained that the military response to the crisis had prevented a much larger war in the Middle East. 

"Israel had been expecting an Egyptian invasion in either March or April 1957, as well as a Soviet invasion of Syria."

*Empire marches on from Iraq to Syria:*

"The 10th anniversary of the infamously illegal invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change and on the false pretext of eradicating weapons of mass destruction was recently observed by massive bombings and blood-letting in Iraq with a weak government presiding over a faction-ridden country coping with unbridled violence.

"Is that the future that awaits Syria?

Syria--Enough-is-enough- - Al-Ahram Weekly


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 6, 2013)

Israel is here to stay. 

That fact really torments some of you, doesn't it?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Israel is here to stay.
> 
> That fact really torments some of you, doesn't it?


*Israel's days as a Jewish state are numbered:*

"Kook was Israel's first chief rabbi. In his honour, and to continue his teachings, the extremist Merkaz Harav (the Rabbi's Centre) was founded in 1924 as a yeshiva or fundamentalist religious college. 

"It teaches that, 'non-Jews living under Jewish law in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) must either be enslaved as water carriers and wood hewers, or banished, or exterminated.'"

"It gets no more extremist than that, and highlights the dangers for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. Their lives and welfare are being sacrificed for a Greater Israel of Jews alone."

*You're not that special.*
*Choke on it.*

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 6, 2013)

Israel is here to stay.  Deal with it.

Or don't.  Why should anyone care about your hate and delusions?


----------



## toastman (Jul 6, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is here to stay.
> ...



When will you, Tinmore and Sherri wake up from this delusional dream of yours.
For 65 years, people have been saying that Israel's days are numbered. For the next 65 years, we will be hearing the same drivel.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 6, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


Let Georgie Boy choke on what some non Jews have had to say about the Jews.   Someone in his Section 8 building might hear him choking, call 9 1 1, and the paramedics will take him to the Los Angeles County Medical Center's Emergency Room.


#1
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."

 Winston Churchill

_____________________________________

#2
"The Jew is that sacred being who has brought down from heaven the everlasting fire, and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and fountain out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religions."

 Leo Tolstoy
_____________________________________
#3
"It was in vain that we locked them up for several hundred years behind the walls of the Ghetto. No sooner were their prison gates unbarred than they easily caught up with us, even on those paths which we opened up without their aid."

A. A. Leroy Beaulieu, French publicist, 1842
_____________________________________

#4
"The Jew gave us the Outside and the Inside - our outlook and our inner life. We can hardly get up in the morning or cross the street without being Jewish. We dream Jewish dreams and hope Jewish hopes. Most of our best words, in fact - new, adventure, surprise, unique, individual, person, vocation, time, history, future, freedom, progress, spirit, faith, hope, justice - are the gifts of the Jews."

 Thomas Cahill, Irish Author
_____________________________________
#5
"One of the gifts of the Jewish culture to Christianity is that it has taught Christians to think like Jews, and any modern man who has not learned to think as though he were a Jew can hardly be said to have learned to think at all."

 William Rees-Mogg, former Editor-in-Chief for The Times of London and a member of the House of Lords

____________________________________
#6
"It is certain that in certain parts of the world we can see a peculiar people, separated from the other peoples of the world and this is called the Jewish people...

This people is not only of remarkable antiquity but has also lasted for a singular long time... For whereas the people of Greece and Italy, of Sparta, Athens and Rome and others who came so much later have perished so long ago, these still exist, despite the efforts of so many powerful kings who have tried a hundred times to wipe them out, as their historians testify, and as can easily be judged by the natural order of things over such a long spell of years. They have always been preserved, however, and their preservation was foretold... My encounter with this people amazes me..."

 Blaise Pascal, French Mathematician
_____________________________________

#7
"The Jewish vision became the prototype for many similar grand designs for humanity, both divine and man made The Jews, therefore, stand at the center of the perennial attempt to give human life the dignity of a purpose."

 Paul Johnson, American Historian
_____________________________________

#8
"As long as the world lasts, all who want to make progress in righteousness will come to Israel for inspiration as to the people who had the sense for righteousness most glowing and strongest."

 Matthew Arnold, British poet and critic
_____________________________________
#9
"Indeed  it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks.  They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.

They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.

They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their "s avi or."

Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet  only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews...

And while their subconscious  tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do  anything to suppress it.

They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to  handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.

So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.

All this in  order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.

Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by  their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.

When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague , they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.

The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse."

 Olive Schreiner, South African novelist and social activist
_____________________________________

#10
"If there is any honor in all the world that I should like, it would be to be an honorary Jewish citizen."

 A.L Rowse, authority on Shakespeare


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

"The British ruling class, which was rabidly anti-Semitic, had its own reasons for this support. Out of the First World War, Arab nationalism had emerged as a major threat to domination of the Middle East and Britain hoped that Zionists could be a useful force for policing the Arabs. 

"But Winston Churchill gave another reason for supporting Zionism-defeat of the left wing 'International Jews.' 

"In an astoundingly anti-Semitic article titled "Zionism versus Bolshevism," Churchill wrote,

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them....

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews.... 

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus...to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing ...

"It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. 

"And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.... 

"hould there be created in our own life rime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire."

*Because the racist old war whore saw Israel as a tool of Empire.*

The Hidden Roots of Zionism


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


65 years ago the phrase "from the River to the sea" was pure fantasy among Zionists in the newly founded Jewish state. That isn't the case today; approximately equal numbers of Jews and Arabs live on that real estate, and every Jew is special enough to warrant a vote in Israeli elections while the vast majority of Arabs living under Jew law are not. Since the "chosen ones" favor their nation above their state they will soon face the choice between democracy and apartheid. The world will take note and act long before 2048. Good riddance.


----------



## toastman (Jul 7, 2013)

No fantasy for the Jews. Israel exists, from the River to the Sea.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*Lie​*

.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

toastman said:


> No fantasy for the Jews. Israel exists, from the River to the Sea.


As a racist apartheid state in which millions eligible voters living under Jewish law are denied the opportunity to determine who writes those laws.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

"The demography of Israel is monitored by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,012,400 inhabitants as of 31 March 2013.[2] 75.4 percent of them are Jewish (about 6,037,700 individuals), 20.6 percent are Arabs (about 1,656,600 individuals)..."

"The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated Palestinians at mid year 2009 as 10.7 million persons as follows: 3.9 million in the Palestinian Territory (36.6%), 1.2 million (11.5%) in Israel; 5.0 million in Arab countries (46.2%), 0.6 million in foreign countries (5.7%).[6]

"According to an article in Guardian (2008) using PCBS census figures, the Palestinian territories have one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with numbers surging 30% in the past decade (2008). There was 3.76 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, up from 2.89 million 10 years earlier.[7]"

Demographics of the Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approximately six million Jews currently live between the River and the sea.
All Jews of voting age have the right to cast a ballot.
About five million Arabs live on the same ground, yet only about 30% are entitled to vote for those writing the laws they live under.

NO LIE.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "The demography of Israel is monitored by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,012,400 inhabitants as of 31 March 2013.[2] 75.4 percent of them are Jewish (about 6,037,700 individuals), 20.6 percent are Arabs (about 1,656,600 individuals)..."
> 
> "The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated Palestinians at mid year 2009 as 10.7 million persons as follows: 3.9 million in the Palestinian Territory (36.6%), 1.2 million (11.5%) in Israel; 5.0 million in Arab countries (46.2%), 0.6 million in foreign countries (5.7%).[6]
> 
> ...


Georgie Boy, by now I think most of the readers realize that you actually don't care about the Arabs -- you just have it in for the Jews for some reason so you repeat the same things ad nauseam from one of the sites that you favor.  If you really were such a good humanitarian who you want us to believe you are, why not go on the Asia Board of the USMessageBoord and prove it to us by discussing something like this if you are worried about how many so and so lived in a region?  If you feel you can't do this because it doesn't involve the Jews, why not sit in that new park in downtown L.A. and watch the crowd pass by.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-st...47-partition-of-India/119075261604406?sk=info


----------



## toastman (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No fantasy for the Jews. Israel exists, from the River to the Sea.
> ...



Just curious, what right do Palestinians, who live in refugee camps in Jordan , have ??


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Do you mean those with deeds to land their families lived on for generations inside the Green Line?

"The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated Palestinians at mid year 2009 as 10.7 million persons as follows: *3.9 million in the Palestinian Territory* (36.6%), 1.2 million (11.5%) in Israel; 5.0 million in Arab countries (46.2%), 0.6 million in foreign countries (5.7%).[6]"

Demographics of the Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The demography of Israel is monitored by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,012,400 inhabitants as of 31 March 2013.[2] 75.4 percent of them are Jewish (about 6,037,700 individuals), 20.6 percent are Arabs (about 1,656,600 individuals)..."
> ...


"THE BROADER THREAT OF EXTREMISM: Israeli extremists are a minority but influential enough to make policy, and therein lies the threat to peace and likelihood of a sovereign Palestinian state. 

"In his book, A Little Too Close to God, David Horovitz recalled that before prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination he attended a Netanyahu-sponsored anti-Rabin rally he described as follows: 'I felt as if I were among wild animals, vicious, angry predators craving flesh and scenting blood.'"

Sounds like your kind of "humanitarians", Hossie.
Did you celebrate Rabin's murder?

Al-Ahram Weekly | Focus | Religious fundamentalism in Israel


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "The demography of Israel is monitored by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,012,400 inhabitants as of 31 March 2013.[2] 75.4 percent of them are Jewish (about 6,037,700 individuals), 20.6 percent are Arabs (about 1,656,600 individuals)..."
> 
> "The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) estimated Palestinians at mid year 2009 as 10.7 million persons as follows: 3.9 million in the Palestinian Territory (36.6%), 1.2 million (11.5%) in Israel; 5.0 million in Arab countries (46.2%), 0.6 million in foreign countries (5.7%).[6]
> 
> ...



*About five million Arabs live on the same ground, yet only about 30% are entitled to vote for those writing the laws they live under.*

Why not list all Muslim countries and the % who can vote in their elections?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Instead of using something that the wasn't stated by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, how about showing us something from a regular encyclopedia.  When you went to school, there was no such thing as Wikipedia where people could throw in whatever facts they wanted to.  Students were required to use regular encyclopedias where actual researchers were responsible for the information contained in these encyclopedias.  Meanwhile, we are to believe that all these Arabs were filthy rich and had land and assets when many of them were actual tenant farmers under the rich Turkish landowners and then other Arabs swarmed in when the Jews had jobs for them.  Tell us, Georgie Boy, since you were born here -- do you own property and have all those other assets in your name like these Arabs supposedly had?


----------



## toastman (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Let me try again. What rights do Palestinians living in Jordan in refugee camps have ?????


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 7, 2013)

Arabs living under governance of Israel vote in Israeli elections and have members of parliament that represent them.

Arabs living under governance of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza vote in those respective parliamentary elections.


.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 7, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Isn't it wonderful how Georgie Boy found another Arab or Muslim propaganda site where he can pull up nonsense ad nauseam.  Of course, I think the viewers realize that Georgie Boy is comatose to the threat that the Islamic extremists/radicals pose for the entire world.  I would think at least, Gerogie Boy, you and Louie Farrakhian would have a problem with what is going on in this part of the world, but maybe your propaganda sites don't mention what is going on there because it doesn't involve the Jews so maybe you don't feel you have to act like some good humanitarian when it comes to these innocent people.

Islamic extremists kill 30 in school attack in northeast Nigeria | Fox News


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> Arabs living under governance of Israel vote in Israeli elections and have members of parliament that represent them.
> 
> Arabs living under governance of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza vote in those respective parliamentary elections.
> 
> ...


Arabs living under the Jewish boot of a racist occupation have no vote in elections determining which laws they live under. If Jews prefer their nationality to democracy, they'll soon disappear into the same sewer White South Africa did.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > Arabs living under governance of Israel vote in Israeli elections and have members of parliament that represent them.
> ...



You need to give me a link.  I would be interested to know which Muslims in Israel are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.  Where do they live in Israel - which region?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



BFD, what laws that were proposed by Arab legislators actually passed?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I don't have a clue what BFD means.  I want to know which Muslims in Israel are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.  Where do they live in Israel - which region?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



BFD means big deal. If they cannot pass legislation then their presence is merely token. It makes no difference if they are there or not.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Can you answer the question I ask.  If not, don't twist the topic.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



I asked what laws that were proposed by Arab legislators actually passed?

You are the one ducking the question.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The issue is George Philips's assertion that arabs in Israel are not allowed the vote in Israeli elections.  If you can answer it fine, if not then perhaps twiddle your thumbs or whatever.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



The ones still living there can but all the ones who got the boot cannot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Well at least the ones who got the boot can vote in the Muslim country they live in now, right?


----------



## toastman (Jul 8, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You mean people who don't live in Israel can't vote?? What a surprise !!


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jul 8, 2013)

I really am at a loss as to why all of you are intent on creating the world's fattest troll.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...


Area C


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



It that person has Israeli citizenship then he or she can vote in Israeli elections.  Many arabs chose not to become Israeli citizens.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...


Every Arab living between the River and the sea lives under Israeli law, be it civil or military.
One in three Arabs have a vote in Israeli elections.
Jewish state or democratic state?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



In Area C which is the area you wanted to know about, those arabs who accepted to become Israeli citizens have the right to vote.  Not all Palestinians wanted to become a citizen of Israel.


----------



## toastman (Jul 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



So you're saying that those who are not citizens of Israel are not allowed to vote???


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 23, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...


In Area C, civilian Jews have increased from 1000 colonists in 1972 to over 300,000 today all in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions proscription against an Occupying Power filling the territory it occupies with its civilian population.

Since there are only 90,000 to 150,000 Arabs currently living on the same land, of course apologists for "creeping annexation" would suggest Arabs give up their land and water rights for a minority vote in a Jewish Ethnocracy.

How else to explain how the fact that nearly 70% of Palestinian villages are not connected to a water network that serves illegal settlers squatting on land that Arabs had lived on for centuries before Israel's Iron Wall lurched into Palestine?

Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 23, 2013)

georgephillip, Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_

Well, it is not exactly right; as usual.



georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

*POINT #1:*  It is not a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) proscription.  As the GCIV only addresses "transfers by force."  However, it is a _prima facie_ violation of the Rome Statues (RS-ICC).  I copied them both for you to compare so that you can see the difference.  The importance of this point is that while Israel is a signatory of the GCIV, it is not a signatory of the Rome Statues.  _(This is a very common mistake for people who don't do their own research and analysis; and have a preconceived notion or agenda.  In every good piece of propaganda there a bit of truth.)_



			
				Comparison of the selected codes:  GCIV 'vs' RS-ICC said:
			
		

> *Section III. Occupied territories - Article 49 - Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. *
> 
> Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
> 
> ...



You will notice that the GCIV says:  "Individual or mass forcible transfers."  Wherein, the RS-ICC does not have "force" as a criteria or element of the offense.​
*POINT #2:*  The "settlement" issue is to the Palestinians --- as is --- the "right of return" issue is to the Israeli.  This is a negotiating point at any Peace Talk.  The attempt by the Palestinian to use the pre-War 1967 Borders as a pre-condition to the Talks is a crafty attempt by the Palestinians to get the upper hand on the negotiation of settlements and the right of return.  _(Most people don't get that.)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> In Area C which is the area you wanted to know about, those arabs who accepted to become Israeli citizens have the right to vote.  Not all Palestinians wanted to become a citizen of Israel.



Izreael has ultimate control and rule over all land and peoples from the river to the sea.

buty millions of palestiniansw in that land have no right to vote or the option to have the right to vote.  millions of palestonioans in that land suffer legal discrimination and apartheid laws.   palestinioans who marry israelis cannot move to israel even thouigh the zionists say the whole land is israel.  palestinians are in essence second class citiszens.

that isn't democracy.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> In Area C, civilian Jews have increased from 1000 colonists in 1972 to over 300,000 today all in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions proscription against an Occupying Power filling the territory it occupies with its civilian population.
> 
> Since there are only 90,000 to 150,000 Arabs currently living on the same land, of course apologists for "creeping annexation" would suggest Arabs give up their land and water rights for a minority vote in a Jewish Ethnocracy.
> 
> ...




with all due respoect it is a violation of international law for a occupying country to do any construction in occupied lands other than for secutrity purpsoes.

housing for civilians is not security puirpsoies.  roads, collages, synagogues, dams, is not for security purpsos.  it is to expand the state of israel.  and it is a violation of intrernational law.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener,  et al,

OK, if you believe this, then cite me the code.



Gardener said:


> with all due respoect it is a violation of international law for a occupying country to do any construction in occupied lands other than for secutrity purpsoes.
> 
> housing for civilians is not security puirpsoies.  roads, collages, synagogues, dams, is not for security purpsos.  it is to expand the state of israel.  and it is a violation of intrernational law.


*(OBSERVATION)*

I cited the two laws.  

*(QUESTIONS)*

Which is applicable?  

Or do you have another law in mind?

*(COMMENT)*

I am not so sure the "settlements" being built to expand the state!  What proof of this allegation is there?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

i think its in the Un charter i shall look it upo.

thank you for being peaceful and civil i nappreciate it.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

The legal advisor to Israel's Foreign Ministrer said in 1967

"Meron determined that, "The prohibition [against settlement activity in Article 49] therefore is categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state. If it is decided to go ahead with Jewish settlement in the administered territories, it seems to me vital, therefore, that settlement is carried out by military and not civilian entities. It is also important, in my view, that such settlement is in the framework of camps and is, on the face of it, of a temporary rather than permanent nature"

Israeli settlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UN and many other organizatiomns that are itnernational have established that the settlements atre illegal time and timke again.

_In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State of the United States reached the same conclusion.[89][94]

The International Court of Justice has since ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.[95]

International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[96] major organs of the United Nations,[97] the European Union, and Canada,[98] also regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[99] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law.

In late January 2013 a report drafted by three justices, presided over by Christine Chanet, and issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council declared that Jewish settlements constituted a creeping annexation based on multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions and international law, and stated that if Palestine ratified the Rome Accord, Israel could be tried for gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.' A spokesman for Israels Foreign Ministry declared the report unfortunate and accused the UNs Human Rights Council of a systematically one-sided and biased approach towards Israel. [100]

According to Talia Sasson the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israels presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[101]_

internatiomal law isays the settlements are ikllegal.

even the legal council to israel in 1967 said civilian settklemrents would be illegal


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

The UN and the USA State Department have also stated clearly that the settlements are illegal.

_The universality of the opinion that the settlements are in violation of Article 49(6) is measured in part by Security Council Resolution 446 (March 22, 1979), which stated the settlements had no legal validity. The United States also recognizes the violation, which was set forth by the Department of State Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, on April 21, 1978, when he concluded that: 

On the basis of the available information, the civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with these limits on Israels authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories and, though some may serve incidental security purposes, they do not appear to be required to meet military needs during the occupation. The language and history of the provision [Article 49(6)] lead to the conclusion that transfers of a belligerent occupants civilian population into occupied territory are broadly proscribed as beyond the scope of interim military administration. _


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 23, 2013)

FACT

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others.
*In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. &#8220;The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there,&#8221; according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. 4
*
As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> FACT
> 
> The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others.
> *In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there, according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. 4
> ...



these are lies.

Jordan legaly controled  the West ABnk.     israelis think that only israel can conquer land in a war but arabs cant.

studies hjavbe shown that many israeli settlements are buikld on Arab private property,.  even the israelis admit to this.

the Strate dept. of the USA has said agin and again that the settmenrtsd are illegal.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > FACT
> ...



*Jordan ILLEGALLY occupied the land.  No country apart from UK and one other country recognized Jordan's occupation.  We have told you this time and time again.  
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo]Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank - YouTube[/ame]

*


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> *Jordan ILLEGALLY occupied the land.  No country apart from UK and one other country recognized Jordan's occupation.  We have told you this time and time again.
> Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank - YouTube
> 
> *



wqrong wrong very very wrong.

nobody rcognized the annexation but the british.

name one country on earth who said the jordanian occupation was illegla.

name one!!!!  name one country who said that jordan must leavbe the west bank@!!!

name one country that said jordan didn't have a right to occupy west bank.

name UN resolutions condemning the jordan occupation of west bank@!!!!

you cant cause they dpn't exuist and u know it.

jordsan's occupoation of thre west bank was legsal!!!!


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > *Jordan ILLEGALLY occupied the land.  No country apart from UK and one other country recognized Jordan's occupation.  We have told you this time and time again.
> ...



I have just finished watching that video just after I posted it.  That proves you haven't watched it.  You haven't because you are afraid to watch it.  You can't handle the truth.


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener you cant just make claims without backing it up. Where your sources ?


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Gardener you cant just make claims without backing it up. Where your sources ?



Jordan anannexed the Wwest Bank.

Only britajin recognized thius.  

but no country ever said that jordan's occupation ofg the west bank was ilelgal.

not once,.  not ever.

there is no evidence at all that anyone evr did this.  caroline will not present any evdience because it doesn't exist.

no countries or the UN ever said that jrordans's occupation of west bank was "illegal".

sorry friendo.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> I have just finished watching that video just after I posted it.  That proves you haven't watched it.  You haven't because you are afraid to watch it.  You can't handle the truth.



I have enough kniowledge about this history to speak for myslf and not post videos to talk for me.

someday u will do the same.

or you can start now and tell us what "facts" are in your little movie.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Gardener you cant just make claims without backing it up. Where your sources ?
> ...


And now Gardener is going to explain to us why these Arabs who are calling themselves Palestinians now never raised their voices and demanded a state when Jordan and Egypt were administering the two territories.  Was it because they didn't mind that other Arabs were governing them, but they couldn't stand the thought of Jews administering those two areas?


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> And now Gardener is going to explain to us why these Arabs who are calling themselves Palestinians now never raised their voices and demanded a state when Jordan and Egypt were administering the two territories.  Was it because they didn't mind that other Arabs were governing them, but they couldn't stand the thought of Jews administering those two areas?


 
the Palestinians thought and preayed that Jordan and egyopt would respect {palestinian rights.  but this proved to be not true so they killed king abdullah.


when jordan annexed the west bank the arab league tried to kick out jordan.  Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt   all tried to do this but it was veteod by little Yemen and Iraq.  

history is your friend, dumbass.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > And now Gardener is going to explain to us why these Arabs who are calling themselves Palestinians now never raised their voices and demanded a state when Jordan and Egypt were administering the two territories.  Was it because they didn't mind that other Arabs were governing them, but they couldn't stand the thought of Jews administering those two areas?
> ...


Now, Gardener, by calling people dumbasses all the time doesn't make the viewers think that you know it all -- all they will think it is you who are the dumbass.  Meanwhile, the Arabs were not clamoring for a state when Egypt and Jordan were administering the areas, and I think it is obvious to many people who are not anti-Semites that it was OK for the Arabs to be governed by other Arabs but it was just catastrophic for the Jews to be governing any Arabs when the Jews should just be the Dhimmis of the Arabs.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Now, Gardener, by calling people dumbasses all the time doesn't make the viewers think that you know it all -- all they will think it is you who are the dumbass.  Meanwhile, the Arabs were not clamoring for a state when Egypt and Jordan were administering the areas, and I think it is obvious to many people who are not anti-Semites that it was OK for the Arabs to be governed by other Arabs but it was just catastrophic for the Jews to be governing any Arabs when the Jews should just be the Dhimmis of the Arabs.



how many Paletsinian homes did the Jordanians demolish????????????????????????

how many palestinian refugees did the jordanians make?????????????????????????????????????????

how many palestinian land did the jordanians confiscate with no money payment and build nice homes for jordanians???????????????????

how many roadbocks did jordan set up and fence and walls to make life  aliving nightmare for the palestinians????????????????????????????????????/

how many palestiniane lost their right to live in the wesat bank because they went away for a few months to see relatibves under Jordan???????????????????????????????????????



compared to the Israelis the Jordanians treated Palestinians like Queens and Kings!!!!!!!!!!

and u wonder why the pallaestinians didn't hate Jordan!!!!!


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

Still no sources to back up his claims


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Still no sources to back up his claims



at least i have the integrity to debate and make claims all you do is pat people u agree with on the back and say silly things to me.

are you ging to contribute to this disucssion or just keep up the backrubs?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Possibly because Jordan and Egypt weren't stealing the land and water resources of Palestinians while constructing a pair of apartheid walls?

*"Another brick in Israel's apartheid wall*

"A new bill being promoted by Israel's ministerial comittee, which essentially legalizes discrimination against minorities in Israel, demonstrates the vigorously anti-democratic spirit of Israel's new government."

Another brick in Israel's apartheid wall - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > FACT
> ...



Wait a minute.

How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land? Jordan and Palestine were not at war.


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Still no sources to back up his claims
> ...



But all; of that means nothing without sources. 

Still nothing to back up your claim ? Anything ?


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Wait a minute.
> 
> How did Jordan conquer Palestinian land? Jordan and Palestine were not at war.



jordan foguth israel for the land and won the land.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> But all; of that means nothing without sources.
> 
> Still nothing to back up your claim ? Anything ?





toastman said:


> Still no sources to back up his claims



is this goiung to be your schtick?

you'll look better if you instead debate the topic, friendo.


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > But all; of that means nothing without sources.
> ...



All I asked for was a source to back up your claim about Jordan and the West Bank. 
Still nothing but deflections I see


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a minute.
> ...



Jordan won Palestinian land from Israel?


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

What's 'foguth' ??


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> All I asked for was a source to back up your claim about Jordan and the West Bank.
> Still nothing but deflections I see



i provided a sourc but youre just playing silly games and trolling.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Jordan won Palestinian land from Israel?



israel and jordan fought over palestinian land.

israel won some of it jordan won some of it.


----------



## toastman (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > All I asked for was a source to back up your claim about Jordan and the West Bank.
> ...



What post is your source?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Jordan won Palestinian land from Israel?
> ...



Nobody won the 1948 war.

An armistice was called by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody surrendered and nobody was defeated. No land was transferred to anyone.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Not exactly.



P F Tinmore said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Jordan took the West Bank in 1948, which was taken from the Territorial Trusteeship under the UN.  In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



liar.

the UN recognized israel's winning of palestinian land and let that land become parts of israel.

jordan won arab palestine and the british and usa recognized the annex of the west bank (arab palestine) to jordan.

Transjordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Gardener said:
> ...



Can you quote a link?


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Can you quote a link?



u want a link for proof that the United nations accepted israel's borders in 1949?


lol youre pretty funny are you saying the UN only acceptd the UN res 181 borders for israel?

haaaa haaaaa!!!!!!!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Can you quote a link?
> ...



The borders proposed by resolution 181 never became borders.

Israel was defined by armistice lines that were specifically* not *to be political or territorial boundaries. The UN does not recognize any real borders for Israel because Israel has no borders.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The borders proposed by resolution 181 never became borders.
> 
> Israel was defined by armistice lines that were specifically* not *to be political or territorial boundaries. *The UN does not recognize any real borders for Israel* because Israel has no borders.



you got a link with evidencee?

israel has no official borders wit egypt?

israel has no official borders with jordan?

israel has  no official borders with lebanon?

haa haaaa!!!!!!  OMG whrre do u get this stuff?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The borders proposed by resolution 181 never became borders.
> ...



Armistice lines.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Still no sources to back up his claims


Isn't it hilarious that he says Jordan treated the "Palestinians" better?  In his dreams!!!!  Not only did Israel do many things for the Arabs when they started administering the territories, but Gardener also conveniently forgets that the previous King of Jordan, with the help of the Pakistani Army, murdered thousands and thousands of Palestinians.   I guess when Arabs kill other Arabs it is of no consequence to him.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Gardener said:
> ...


Could it be, Georgie Boy, because the Egyptians and Jordanians didn't care about these particular Arabs do did nothing to elevate their lot when it comes to such things as putting in infrastructure?  Meanwhile, I don't think you realize, being the anti-Semite you are, how the Arabs in the territories must have been up in arms that the Jews were going to administer the areas.  We can chip in, Georgie Boy, and send you to Israel where you can ask the Arabs if they prefer to live in Israel or in any other Middle East country.  I know that Georgie Boy will like to accommodate the viewers and give them another Israeli newspapers report on this.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Still no sources to back up his claims
> ...



we should do a poll in Palestine asking the Palestinian people if they would rather be ruled by Jordan or Izrael.

i wonder how that poll wold look.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Could it be, Georgie Boy, because the Egyptians and Jordanians didn't care about these particular Arabs do did nothing to elevate their lot when it comes to such things as putting in infrastructure?  Meanwhile, I don't think you realize, being the anti-Semite you are, how the Arabs in the territories must have been up in arms that the Jews were going to administer the areas.  We can chip in, Georgie Boy, and send you to Israel where you can ask the Arabs if they prefer to live in Israel or in any other Middle East country.  I know that Georgie Boy will like to accommodate the viewers and give them another Israeli newspapers report on this.



they didn't put in lots of new roads but they also didn't steal tens of thosuands of acres of land, destroy thousands of hoems, built tons of walls and barbwire fences.

i wonder who the palestinian people like more, isreael or jordan?


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be, Georgie Boy, because the Egyptians and Jordanians didn't care about these particular Arabs do did nothing to elevate their lot when it comes to such things as putting in infrastructure?  Meanwhile, I don't think you realize, being the anti-Semite you are, how the Arabs in the territories must have been up in arms that the Jews were going to administer the areas.  We can chip in, Georgie Boy, and send you to Israel where you can ask the Arabs if they prefer to live in Israel or in any other Middle East country.  I know that Georgie Boy will like to accommodate the viewers and give them another Israeli newspapers report on this.
> ...


Now how would you know?  Are you trying to tell us you were there to see what happened?  You mean that you didn't get an inoculation against infectious diseases like the other Arabs did when the Jews started administering the territories?  By the way, Gardener, how many of you are posting?   In some of the posts, the English grammar and spelling is pretty fine, but in others it looks like someone failed the ESL course.  And I doubt one person is sitting all day long reading and then answering posts.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Now how would you know?  Are you trying to tell us you were there to see what happened?  You mean that you didn't get an inoculation against infectious diseases like the other Arabs did when the Jews started administering the territories?  By the way, Gardener, how many of you are posting?   In some of the posts, the English grammar and spelling is pretty fine, but in others it looks like someone failed the ESL course.  And I doubt one person is sitting all day long reading and then answering posts.



oh ok lets talk about my typieing abiolities and not the topic.

that's smart, friendo.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 23, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Now how would you know?  Are you trying to tell us you were there to see what happened?  You mean that you didn't get an inoculation against infectious diseases like the other Arabs did when the Jews started administering the territories?  By the way, Gardener, how many of you are posting?   In some of the posts, the English grammar and spelling is pretty fine, but in others it looks like someone failed the ESL course.  And I doubt one person is sitting all day long reading and then answering posts.
> ...


You keep going, going, going all day long like the Energizer Bunny, but it's strange that it appears that there are two different people posting -- one who knows English fairly well and the other who has to continue with his ESL class.  Meanwhile, the Israelis did much for the Arabs when they took over including raising their life expectancy and giving them one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.  I realize that Gardener doesn't want to hear about this and would rather give us some baloney as to how kind the Egyptians and Jordanians were to the "Palestinians" Arabs and gave them so much that they could live decently.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



"Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of university lectures and rallies of the Israeli situation with the Palestinians held in February or March. 

"According to the organization, "*[t]he aim of IAW is to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)* campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement".[1] 

"It began in Toronto in 2005 and, by 2010, spread to 55 cities around the world including locations in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa, the West Bank, Mexico, Norway and Australia.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"

Israeli Apartheid Week - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




*Of course we all know that Israel practices no apartheid.  
This has been proved time and time again on the forum. 

 It is a term used by the ignorant.​*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMufgpcdnI]The Palestinian Wall of Lies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



As Rocco explained, Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan were fixed as a result of her peace treaties with them.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> *Of course we all know that Israel practices no apartheid.
> This has been proved time and time again on the forum.
> 
> It is a term used by the ignorant.​*The Palestine



israeel has a collectibe system of discrimination laws and policies that togetehr equal a form of apatheid.

palestinians cannot move to israel if they marry an israeli.

isael demolishes palestinian homes and steals palestinioan land to build israeli homes.

israel steals palestinian land to build isaeli schools, roads, walls, fences, but does niothing for the palestuinians.

this is aparhtied.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> You keep going, going, going all day long like the Energizer Bunny, but it's strange that it appears that there are two different people posting -- one who knows English fairly well and the other who has to continue with his ESL class.  Meanwhile, the Israelis did much for the Arabs when they took over including raising their life expectancy and giving them one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.  I realize that Gardener doesn't want to hear about this and would rather give us some baloney as to how kind the Egyptians and Jordanians were to the "Palestinians" Arabs and gave them so much that they could live decently.



an thats why the israelis love israel more than jordan./


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > *Of course we all know that Israel practices no apartheid.
> ...



Not many Palestinians and Israelis are intermarrying, as a result of the animosity between the two groups, as well as the fact that both Islam and Judaism prohibit intermarriage.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Gardener said:
> ...



Israel cannot acquire Palestinian borders by agreements with Egypt and Jordan.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener,  _et al,_

Yeah, the idea of "apartheid" is a domestic issue, not an international issue.



Gardener said:


> israeel has a collectibe system of discrimination laws and policies that togetehr equal a form of apatheid.


*(COMMENT)*

My understanding is that, inside Israel, there is no difference in the law between the citizens (Jewish or Arab).  In fact, neither Jewish or Arab is a race; which is a key element of the law.  An Arab can be Jewish, or Jews can be Arab.

The Jewish are an ethno-religious group of sorts.
An Israeli is a nationality (can be Arab or other).
To be Arab is a culture, all speakers of Arabic
.

The crime of "apartheid" means acts committed by one racial group over any other racial group.  There is no racial laws in Israel.  No society is without internal friction between different cultures, but that is not "apartheid."



Gardener said:


> palestinians cannot move to israel if they marry an israeli.


*(COMMENT)*

First:  This is an immigration matter.  The crime of "apartheid" does not impact national immigration laws.  Any nation has the right to control its borders.

Second:  What is being said here is that there is no automatic citizenship passed on through marriage.  So what.  This translates to:

A non-citizen cannot (does not have the right to) move to israel if (just because) they marry an israeli (citizen).
I'm not a specialist in immigration law, but I am given to understand that there is such a thing as an "Israeli spousal visa or partner visa, given to the spouse, civil partner or de facto partner of a resident or Israeli citizen."  *I would contact Consular Services.*

*SPECIAL NOTE:*  (NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952* PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY - Para 7) The spouse of a person who is an Israel national or who has applied for Israel nationality and meets or is exempt from the Requirements of Section 5 (a) may obtain Israel nationality by naturalisation even if she or he is a minor or does not meet the requirements of section (5) (a).​
I am also given to understand that:



			
				Right of Return said:
			
		

> Any gentile, be he Arab or from any other origin, who wishes to settle in Israel, may do so if he meets the requirements set forth in the Law of Entry to Israel (1952) and the Law of Citizenship (1952), regarding naturalization. These requirements are similar to those stated in the laws of most countries.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Law of Return- 1950





Gardener said:


> isael demolishes palestinian homes and steals palestinioan land to build israeli homes.


*(COMMENT)*

This claim, appears to apply to the ground called _(layman's terms)_ "the Occupied Territories."  While there are cases in which the Palestinian may have a legitimate grievance with the Occupation Power, on matters of acquisition land management, this is not the same as "apartheid."



Gardener said:


> israel steals palestinian land to build isaeli schools, roads, walls, fences, but does niothing for the palestuinians.
> 
> this is aparhtied.


*(COMMENT)*

This *is not* "apartheid."  This is not something undertaken to separate one racial group of Israeli Citizens from another racial group of Israeli Citizens.

First, There is no "racial" component here at all.

Second:  The building of infrastructure is not the responsibility of the Occupation Force.  That is the responsibility of the Palestinian people.

*(DISCLAIMER)*

Again, I am not an expert (in any way, shape or form) on Israeli Immigration.  But, the Israel MFA has experts at every Consular Station.  That would be my first stop.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is purely a Palestinian Claim.  It has no basis in law.



P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaties are between Israel and the respective countries (Egypt and Jordan).  The Palestinians were not party to the Treaty and have no say in the Treaty, as they were not a sovereignty involved in the agreement.

Treaties are on file with the UN and so recognized as valid and in force.  No adjacent state has a Treaty in recognition of the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Tinmore, why is is that you make these claims as if you know what you're talking about ?

We've already showed you information regarding Israels borders with Egypt and Jordan. You have provided ZERO documents or articles to contradict what we have said.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Another load of crap from that lying sack of crap, David Horowitz.

*Not a Muslim.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4lir-1kR-s]Dr Ghada Karmi @ Israeli Apartheid Week, Middlesex University - UK - YouTube[/ame]

*Not a Muslim.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAKOtINJHWw]Diana Buttu: Palestinian Refugee Rights & Negotiations - YouTube[/ame]

*Not a Muslim.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddwkhffVcbo]Rafeef Ziadah on Palestine, Israel and justice - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

If David Horowitz is a lying sack of crap, what does that make you Tinnie ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



It is a matter of law. Why does Israel negotiate borders with Palestine? Because Palestine is the only one who can change Palestine's borders.

Can Germany and Italy sign a treaty saying they have a mutual border in the middle of France?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> If David Horowitz is a lying sack of crap, what does that make you Tinnie ?



The exposer of a lying sack of crap.


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



That is a claim. You have zero evidence to back it up. You provided ZERO evidence that suggests the treaties that gave Israel borders with Egypt and Jordan are null. because the Palestinians didn;t agree with it. \Where your link ?


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Completely different since Germany, ITaly and France are all recognized countries.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Gardener,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the idea of "apartheid" is a domestic issue, not an international issue.
> My understanding is that, inside Israel, there is no difference in the law between the citizens (Jewish or Arab).  In fact, neither Jewish or Arab is a race; which is a key element of the law.  An Arab can be Jewish, or Jews can be Arab.
> ...



iszrael diiscrimiates and mistreats people udner their control.

they have one law for palestinians in nthe west bank and another law for israelis in the west bank.

they havde laws meant to help jews and hurt arabs.

this is apatheid based on natinality and religion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



*ARTICLE 3*

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


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Gardener,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, the idea of "apartheid" is a domestic issue, not an international issue.



thank you for undrsytanding that the westr bank is not part of israel.

the west bank isnt part of israel even though the ziomists always say it is.

i congratulate your honesty in admittimng that the west bank "arab palestine" is not part of israel.

thank you.


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You showed me that link before.
It does not prove what you are saying at all. The word border is not mentioned once.
Oh, and, Palestine was not a state . Very weak attempt Tinmore. Fail

Let me try again:
Show me some document or article that says Israels borders (which are internationally recognized) are null because the Palestinians didn't give permission


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Good try, but no cigar.



P F Tinmore said:


> *ARTICLE 3*
> 
> 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


*(COMMENT)*

The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States only applies to the Americas; a regional treaty convention.  Neither Israel or anyone claiming to be a representative of the Palestinians are a signatory.  In fact, there are no signatories outside of the Americas.

The global convention that is applicable is the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res. 2625(XXV) (Declaration on Friendly Relations) which the Palestinians find themselves in contravention with all the time [(as recently as this month)(SENIOR HAMAS OFFICIAL: THE RESISTANCE IS ENTITLED TO ATTACK ISRAEL'S EMBASSIES, INTERESTS, AND OFFICIALS WORLDWIDE -- AND THE INTERESTS OF ITS ALLIES, HEADED BY THE U.S.)].



			
				Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States: Solemnly proclaims the following principles: said:
			
		

> Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such *a threat or use of force* constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and *shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues*.
> 
> _*SOURCES:*_
> 
> ...



The Palestinians have proclaimed themselves to be above the international Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> The Palestinians have proclaimed themselves to be above the international Rule of Law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



meanwhiloe you defende israel who buikld illegal settlements on stolen land in arab palestine.

israel thinkgs they are above all law even their own/.

isnt israel giving permits to israeli srettlements that were built without permits?

so they think they can let israelis break israeli law?

lol!!!!!!


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians have proclaimed themselves to be above the international Rule of Law.
> ...


Say, Gardener, are you acquainted with anyone who allowed their child to be a suicide bomber so that he could take out these "evil" Zionists.  Sadly enough, there are still suicide bombers in the Muslim world taking out innocent people (even Muslims of different sects), but those who want to say derogatory things against Israel all the time seemingly close their eyes to what is happening elsewhere.  And, of course, civilized people wouldn't LOL about it.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener,  _et al,_

Again, you are not quite right.



Gardener said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians have proclaimed themselves to be above the international Rule of Law.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

As I've said many times, and actually copied _(more than a dozen times)_ the applicable law, the Palestinians have a _prima facie_ case for a cause of action under Article 8, Para 2b(viii) of the Rome Statues - International Criminal Court.  The proper action for the Palestinians to take (which is counter US Foreign Policy preferences) is to take the issues to court for formal litigation; --- OR --- to sit down and negotiate an equitable settlement.  Of course, in counter suit, Israel could make claim to War Reparations, Civil Damages, Terrorism Restitution and other actions in equity _(costs associated with the defense of sovereignty)_. 

Again, as I've said before, neither side is totally in the right, or totally in the wrong.  But there are peaceful means by which a just outcome can be achieved.  Having said that, it certainly doesn't sound like the Palestinians want to approach such a settlement; rather, they consistently opt to approach the issue in armed conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

I've never seen so many typos in one post


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> I've never seen so many typos in one post


Wait for the 2nd Shift Gardener to appear who types better.  You can't tell me there is just one guy posting who never comes up for air.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



That's okay, because Israel acquired Israeli borders with Egypt and Jordan.

You may have noticed, the guys who signed those agreements were Jews.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*So you think what David Horowitz says with the Muslim Students Association is not affiliated with Hamas.  Yeah riiight.  Another lie from you.  

*


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

Tinmore hates Horowitz because he speaks the truth about Hamas and Hezbollah


----------



## Gardener (Jul 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinmore hates Horowitz because he speaks the truth about Hamas and Hezbollah



David Horowits said th MSA needs to convrt to Judahism or Christianty.  He said that MSA wants a second Holocaust.  he said the Palestinians are Nazis.  

he sounds like a crazy zionist bigot


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinmore hates Horowitz because he speaks the truth about Hamas and Hezbollah
> ...



Finally !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is purely a Palestinian Claim.  It has no basis in law.
> 
> ...



There are no peace treaties with Palestine because Palestine has never been at war with anyone.


----------



## MHunterB (Jul 24, 2013)

Gardener said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinmore hates Horowitz because he speaks the truth about Hamas and Hezbollah
> ...



Then of course you will be able to produce documentation that Horowitz actually made such statements - from some actual news outlet, not someone's blogstain.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Maybe if the rules were changed and they could take their women and children into battle...............nah, no guts, no glory.


----------



## toastman (Jul 24, 2013)

There are no peace treaties with the Palestinians because they don't want peace, they want victory


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Because it's never been a country.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



"British Journalist Johann Hari, a columnist for the London Independent wrote about the sewage problem as a counterpoint to the acclaim Israel was winning internationally on the occasion of its sixtieth anniversary in April and May 2008.

"He wrote that he could not participate in the praise.
'*Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of shit.*

"'Across the Occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish Settlements along large metal pipes straight into Palestinian land. From there it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs and become a poison'".

*The racist poison of Zionism... Breathe deep*

FNOTW: Breaking Israel/Palestine Silence


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



And what has that got to do with the Muslim Students' Association being part of Hamas?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



The Muslim Students' Association and Hamas came into existence as a response to Zionism and its racist legacy of apartheid in Israel:

"While academic institutions hosted the events, amidst controversy and debate,[24] other speakers at the various meetings around the world supported the goals of the Week. An Arab citizen of Israel and Member of the Knesset, Jamal Zahalka, spoke in Montréal in 2007. 

"He said: 'Calling the occupation apartheid isnt an overstatement, its an understatement. The Israeli occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are worse than apartheid."

Try thinking of settler shit as a metaphor for the European colonization of Palestine, unless you're timelessly ignorant.

Israeli Apartheid Week - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Wow, you post an article on sewage which I have already debunked here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israel-and-palestine/304723-the-iron-wall-a-jewish-majority-in-palestine.html#post7591203

with you linking sewage to the Muslim Students' Association, then twist the sewage topic to apartheid.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...


Golly, you've debunked nothing and now you're in denial about Jewish apartheid.
Why don't you twist some hasbara around Israel limiting the right of return to Jews only at the same time it sets limits on creating any new settlements for Arabs? I suspect you're also confused about political Zionism's dependence upon the ethnic cleansing of unwanted Arab natives in order to bring a Jewish majority state into existence in 1948. Start with explaining why you believe Jews who owned less than 7% of the land and amounted to one-third of the population received over half the land between the River and the sea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The Arabs had enough land.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2013)

"I make no apology for inserting the word SHIT instead of facile euphemisms

"One of the most crucial fields of dispute in Israel is below the surface
Israel uses 83 percent of its annually available water for the benefit of Israeli cities, and its settlements while Palestinians use the remaining 17 percent..." 

"The Israeli Minister of National Infrastructure and his fellow criminals accused the Palestinians of deliberate waste and Shit dumping in order to;
'pollute Israel's ground water'.

"Israeli policies generated 300 pirate dumps for Sewage where truckloads of Shit were poured into the valleys besides towns and villages. 

"Tens of thousands of tonnes of human waste from Tel Aviv has caused a total breakdown of sewerage systems, unpiped sewage runs overground from most valleys..."

"The piles of shit and garbage affirm a common national-territorial imagination that sees the presence of Palestinians as a 'defiled substance' within the 'Israeli' landscape. 

"By inducing dirt and raw sewage, Israel could go on demanding the further application of its 'hygienic practices' of separation and segregation.

"*The politics of segregation are woven together by the flow of Sewage."*

FNOTW: Breaking Israel/Palestine Silence


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



What entitles a Jew from Russia to land in Palestine that an Arab possesses a valid deed to?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



How many Arabs had deeds to land controlled by the Turks?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 26, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Of course I debunked your article here in post 607 and the other thread in the link I showed you, but obviously I need to post the details of the link for a third time for you.

-------------------------------------------



*March 6, 2009	by Steven Stotsky

The Independent Refuses to Correct Flawed Column on West Bank Sewage

The Independent, a British newspaper, has firmly established its reputation over the years as a relentless critic of Israel. It has long featured Robert Fisk, whose lively writings are laced with imaginary Israeli crimes, like his bizarre claim that Israel used "a secret new uranium-based weapon" in Lebanon (later found to be baseless by a UN investigation team), and doctored quotes by Israeli leaders to impugn their motives. In recent years, the newspaper has featured another Israel basher with a similar flair and imagination &#8212; Johann Hari. Like Fisk, Hari employs flawed portrayals and doctored quotes to cultivate the theme of Israel abusing Palestinians.

A case in point is Hari's column entitled "Israel is Suppressing a Secret it Must Face" published on April 28, 2008, where he suggested that Israel is deliberately contaminating Palestinian water. He wrote that:

Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs and become a poison.

In fact, published studies demonstrate that it is the Palestinians who are mainly responsible for contaminating the water. Palestinian sources are responsible for 95 percent of all untreated waste in the West Bank, yet the remaining five percent from Jewish settlements receives all of Hari's approbation.

It seems rigorous fact-checking is not part of Hari's skill set. Not only did he misrepresent the facts about untreated waste in his column, but in a subsequent article, "The loathsome smearing of Israel's critics" (May 8, 2008), which was spurred by criticisms of his column, he falsely accused CAMERA of calling him "an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad....."

When CAMERA wrote a letter to The Independent requesting a correction of both the errors in his column on untreated waste and the subsequent smear, the paper's Executive Editor, Louise Hayman, stonewalled, justifying her refusal to correct factual errors by stating, "there is no legal, regulatory or ethical requirement on The Independent that every article should be balanced, or even fair." Apparently, there is also no requirement to be factually accurate.

She claimed that this was not an isolated incident by citing reports in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, which she described as Israel's most distinguished newspaper &#8212; a highly subjective opinion &#8212; and the BBC.

CAMERA responded to her anecdotal defense by providing unequivocal data showing that the raw sewage problem in the West Bank was overwhelmingly of Palestinian origin. Confronted with these facts, Ms. Hayman fell back upon the primacy of The Independent's political narrative which holds Israel as an illegal occupier.

In her final response to CAMERA, Ms. Hayman stated:
Johann Hari's column chose to focus on the untreated sewage emanating from the settlements he believes "there is a qualitiative difference between Israeli settlements, constructed illegally, pumping untreated sewage towards the occupied population, and a collapsing Palestinian Authority being unable to treat its own sewage partly because it exists under military occupation." 

A columnist &#8212; who is clearly flagged up to readers as writing an opinionated take on the news &#8212; is perfectly within his rights to do this. The facts he offered were accurate; his opinions and choice of emphasis are his own, as any reader can see, and as they should be for an op-ed writer.

According to her logic, only Israeli settlers deserve approbation for polluting the land since, in The Independent's opinion, the settlements are illegal. And Israel's military occupation absolves the Palestinian Authority of any responsibility to provide adequate sewage treatment. Despite the billions in aid provided by foreign donors, the Palestinian Authority has made limited investment in sanitation infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Independent condemns Jewish settlements alone for the problem.

Hari Ignores the Findings of Several Environmental Studies in Order to Blame Israel 

Hari's allegation that Jewish settlers are responsible for contaminating West Bank land contradicts not only the statements of Israeli regulators, but the findings of an independent environmental group, Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), which indicates that Palestinians are the primary culprits in generating raw sewage and contaminating water supplies with untreated waste. Hari's disproportionate focus on Jewish settlements as the problem defies logic, considering the much larger Palestinian population in the West Bank. 

In typical fashion, Hari selectively cited a single figure culled from a 2005 study by FoEME claiming that only six percent of Jewish settlements treated their sewage properly. What he neglected to mention, however, is that the figures were based on a survey of only about half of the existing settlements, many of which had already begun to implement treatment processes but were deemed inadequate by FoEME. The other settlements had not been evaluated. Another report by the Israeli Water Commission found 70 percent was adequately treated.

But even the critical FoEME report provides figures showing that more than three quarters of all the waste water in the West Bank is generated by Palestinians who, for the most part, employ no treatment for their waste water. On page four and in its conclusion summary, the report identifies unsanitary cesspits from uphill Palestinian villages as the source of fecal coliforms in water sources. On page five, further detail is provided, calculating that 61 percent of the Palestinian population dispose of their sewage in unlined cesspits amounting to some 46 million cubic meters of waste water. Israeli settlements produce 15 million cubic meters. A table on page six reiterates the figures and contrasts the "partial treatment" of sewage by Israeli settlements to "none or unsatisfactory" treatment by Palestinian locales. An addenda to the report states, "Sewage from most Palestinian cities and villages receives no treatment at all." 

The report's conclusion states:
The Palestinian Authority has openly stated that water supply projects should take precedence over sewage projects. While sewage treatment projects are largely on hold, many infrastructure projects (particularly on water supply) have continued to move forward on the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority has until very recently refused to accept the standards of sewage treatment upon which Israel has insisted.

No honest reading of the FoEME report could conclude that the problem lies predominately with the Jewish settlements.

More recent studies indicate a much higher water treatment rate for Israeli settlements. For example, the 2007 Monitoring Report of the Rivers of Judea and Samaria released by the environmental unit of the Nature and Parks Protection Authority gave precise figures:

94 % of Palestinian waste is untreated or improperly treated, 4.5 % is treated in Israel, 1.5 % is treated on the West Bank.

68.5 % of sewage from Israeli settlements is treated in Israel or the West Bank, 31.5 % is not properly treated.

Palestinians generate 56 million cubic feet of sewage, Jewish settlements 17.5 million cubic feet. 
The Authority's September 2008 monitoring report indicates that Jewish settlements are responsible for only five percent of untreated or improperly treated wastewater, in contrast to the Palestinians who generate 95 percent.

CAMERA was able to identify the specific location Hari wrote about. It is a Palestinian town, Salfit, located near the Israeli city of Ariel. A CAMERA representative met with Ariel officials. What he learned and observed firsthand is not consistent with Hari's account. Ariel has sewage lines running southwest and west of the Western Industrial Area of Ariel. In both routes the sewage is regularly filtered and purified according to Israeli standards. CAMERA confirmed the existence of the filtering and purification facilities. The Palestinian town, Salfit, however, continues to dump untreated waste into the Shilo river &#8212; a fact confirmed by FoEME. Contrary to the accusations in Hari's story, the continuing source of untreated human waste in the water near Salfit is the Palestinian town itself.

Although the 2008 Nature and Park Authority monitoring report did state that some of Ariel's water is not properly treated, the head of Ariel's water authority emphatically denied the report and filed a letter of protest with the Director of the Environmental Unit of the Israeli government. A representative from the unit later apologized for the error and promised to have the report amended.
In CAMERA's correspondance with Executive Editor Hayman, she denied that there were any errors in Hari's piece and defended his false accusation against CAMERA by citing a CAMERA piece criticizing a prior and unrelated Hari column for "employ[ing] crude anti-Jewish themes." 

Despite the persistent refusal of The Independent to adhere to any semblance of fairness, balance or factual accuracy, CAMERA persists in the onerous task of publicizing the newspaper's bias against Israel.
*
(With research by Tamar Sternthal.)

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=6&x_article=1565


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


About three times as many as Jews, why?
How many Jews have deeds to land controlled by Russia today?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How many Israelis own the land they live on and how many just lease?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2013)

Sweet_Caroline said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet_Caroline said:
> ...



"Israeli policies generated 300 pirate dumps for Sewage where truckloads of Shit were poured into the valleys besides towns and villages. Tens of thousands of tonnes of human waste from Tel Aviv has caused a total breakdown of sewerage systems, unpiped sewage runs overground from most valleys..."

"The piles of shit and garbage affirm a common national-territorial imagination that sees the presence of Palestinians as a 'defiled substance' within the 'Israeli' landscape. 
By inducing dirt and raw sewage, Israel could go on demanding the further application of its 
'hygienic practices of separation and segregation'.

"The politics of segregation are woven together by the flow of Sewage
Shit was used as a tool to dislocate the Bedouin Tribe of Jahalin. 
The military civil administration disconnected one of the Ma'Ale Adumin settlements Sewage pipes, flooding large areas within and around the Bedouin camp with streams and ponds of Shit forcing the Bedouin to relocate.

"Only Half of the Residents of the Gaza strip are connected to the central functioning Sewage System. 

"Raw Shit flows overground the length of some Palestinian refugee camps pouring out onto the sand dunes on Gaza's beaches.

"In 2005 a Shin Bet officer described to the Knesset;
'from the level of the satellites the rectangular grid of streets in Gaza refugee camp of Jebalia looks like that of Manhattan only when you get near one notices that the large pool at its centre is not the lake in Central Park *but a huge pool of Shit*.'"
FNOTW: Breaking Israel/Palestine Silence 

For your next imaginary refutation...try "skunkwater."


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jul 26, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Your articles about sewage are a load of sewage.  Running out of arguments?  Tough sewage.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 26, 2013)

"On Sunday afternoon, the Israeli settlement of Beitar Illit, west of Bethlehem, pumped thousands of gallons of sewage wastewater onto Palestinian farmland, destroying the crops and rendering the land unusable."

Jews are not running out of colonization arguments...or sewage.

Israeli Settlers dump sewage on Palestinian farmland near Bethlehem - International Middle East Media Center


----------

