# So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'



## teddyearp (Dec 14, 2015)

About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.

I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:

Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But it is talking about Israel's 'occupation' so instead of derailing that thread I thought I put out this question/food for thought.

OK.  Then let's go back to the 1949 borders.  Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank.  And though at first, Egypt and the Arab league put a party in power that made it seem as though there was a free and independent 'Palestine' in Gaza, it was still controlled by Egypt.  And eventually, Egypt put their own governor in control over Gaza.  Jordan made no bones.  It took total and complete control of the West Bank and issued Jordanian passports, NOT Palestinian ones.  With these facts in place, I wonder then if pbel would re-write his statement in the above thread quoted here:



pbel said:


> There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.



To say:



> <snip>--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Egyptians and Jordanians the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.



Wanna go back?  Let's do it!


----------



## CMike (Dec 14, 2015)

Also if it was all about the land Israel obtained after the 1967 war, why was there a 1948 war? Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.

The aim isn't obtaining land after 1967, it's about destroying all of Israel.


----------



## pbel (Dec 14, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...


Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 14, 2015)

The so called'67 borders were never borders.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 14, 2015)

I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Dec 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The so called'67 borders were never borders.





P F Tinmore said:


> The so called'67 borders were never borders.



Agree! Thats why Israel doesn't have to go back to them . Your You Tube Video talks about the destruction of Israel and the " One State Solution" which will never happen. The Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the " peace negotiations"


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...







 There were two sets of ceasefire lines in 1967 ( never seen as borders by anyone ) the ones that were in place in 1949 before the arab states attacked in 1967 and those in place after Israel won that war in 6 days. So the loudmouths shouting for the 1967 borders should be more explicit on what they mean and state which set of ceasefire lines they mean. Then explain why they chose that set as the basis for the mutually agreed borders.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

pbel said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> ...






 But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians. Then in 1967 the arab armies attacked Israel and lost gaza and the west bank to Israel in the fight that followed. Then the ceasefire lines moved to encompass all of the west bank and all of gaza. Those are the 1967 "borders"


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The so called'67 borders were never borders.







 And arab Palestine was always going to be Jordan


TheOldSchool said:


> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.








 True they would have done it 20 years earlier and put the arab muslims firmly in their place in the process


----------



## Challenger (Dec 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967?



Every now and then , a poster here comes up with a valid point. Why DO we cling to this year, 1967? Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, so if anything, Zionist Israel should, by rights return to these, especially because acquisition of territory, even in a "defensive" war, is illegal.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 15, 2015)

Thank you Tinmore for your informative video.  Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate.  You truly want Israel wiped off the map.  Now we know it for sure.  You could care less about any peace.  Now we know it for sure.

But on the other point I made in my OP, again no pro pal goes near it, as usual.  The west bank and Gaza were still occupied from 1949 through 1967.  Crickets . . . . .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Thank you Tinmore for your informative video.  Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate.  You truly want Israel wiped off the map.  Now we know it for sure.  You could care less about any peace.  Now we know it for sure.
> 
> But on the other point I made in my OP, again no pro pal goes near it, as usual.  The west bank and Gaza were still occupied from 1949 through 1967.  Crickets . . . . .


Actually, the question I have is how did Egypt and Jordan Occupy Palestinian land? Neither of them were at war with Palestine.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The so called'67 borders were never borders.


This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> ...


Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it.  In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable.  The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I'm stuck in reality.  Diplomacy is effective before and after warfare, but not without it.  The diffuse military effect from terrorism or Iranian proxy clearly isn't enough to move two-state diplomacy, so it's not going anywhere.  As the video describes, the two state issue is actually losing prominence among issues in the area.

What is old-school is that people in that region can't cohabitate with people from different religions.  Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 15, 2015)

TheOldSchool



TheOldSchool said:


> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.


*(COMMENT)*

This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."

When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.

When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:



Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.

Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Dec 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.



Another valid point. Thats what the West ultimately discovered when it allowed the Zionists to create their barbarous state; Zionist Israel, the cancer in the region, has grown since then and has become more and more malignant.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 15, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.
> ...


Israel is all wrapped up in this, but further to my point, they are better diplomats, soldiers and generals, and that makes all the difference.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home"

That's the most biased nonsense I've ever seen.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders. Why do we cling to this year, 1967?
> ...






 WRONG again ratboy as Israel's borders were defined by international law and treaty in 1923. That is what they declared independence on. No western powers recognise anything but Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt. The UN was not allowed by international law and its own charter to delineate any borders so the partition plan of 1947 was what it wanted to see happen. The arab muslims demanded the Jews be evicted from the land and the land given to them as they demanded in 1917.Produce a map drawn up by Israel that shows the borders agreed in 1948 when they declared independence of the mandate. The Jews knew that they would either be wiped out defending themselves from the massed arab armies or win the day and have more land than that proposed in the partition plan. You are once again using a recommendation as an international law retrospectively, as that clause did not come into existence until after Israel had occupied gaza, Sinai, west bank and Golan heights. It did not come into being as an international law until much much later, and was promptly breached by muslims all over the world.


 You need to stop smoking hashish and shewing khat as they have addled your brain


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Tinmore for your informative video.  Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate.  You truly want Israel wiped off the map.  Now we know it for sure.  You could care less about any peace.  Now we know it for sure.
> ...







 They didn't need to be, they just needed to use the land as a staging post from which to mount attacks on Israel. And when did it become Palestinian land under international laws ?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...



Shit happens when you lose wars you start.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool
> ...







 It is true though, and anyone who is not brainwashed can see it as reality


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Back to my original point, this "plight" of the Jewish people and anger at the "arrogant" Palestinians wouldn't exist if the creators of Israel had opted out instead of creating the country.  If they had know the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have done it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 15, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


The thing is that Britain was told repeatedly that their stupid plan was not going to work. However, they plodded on with it in spite of the warnings until it blew up in their face. They cut and run leaving the problem they created to the UN.

The UN promptly proposed a solution that was rejected 10 years earlier. A choice of two where the other one would have probably worked. That proposal flopped like the one did 10 years earlier.

The Mandate did not create a Jewish state. The UN did not create a Jewish state. The only thing created was a never ending war.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Actually, the question I have is how did Egypt and Jordan Occupy Palestinian land? Neither of them were at war with Palestine.



True, they were not, so why did they do it?  Or are you denying that they did?


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...







 And where would that have left the Jews of the world then. How soon before another Nazi group started to plot to wipe them out. Just looking at this board the numbers of such people in America is alarming. The Jews had worldwide support for their national home until the birth of the UN when it was lost. The UN should have stamped out the Palestinian/arab nationalist movement in 1947 when they first started to attacks on the Jews hoping to wipe them out and claim all the land. If that had been done then the problems of today would not be there.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Mandate of Palestine, not to be confused with the British mandate


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 The British had no plan as you have been shown many times, they had to obey the commands of the LoN . The mandate was the force behind the creation of the Jewish national home, and it was the fault of the UN that the never ending war was not stopped in 1949


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Tinmore for your informative video.  Informative to the point to show your true self in this debate.  You truly want Israel wiped off the map.  Now we know it for sure.  You could care less about any peace.  Now we know it for sure.
> ...



Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now.  You did show you're true self; You don't have any interest in a " peaceful" " Two State  Solution"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. If those clowns have not been able to get it to work yet, maybe it is time to give it up.

In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, nobody has legally acquired any Palestinian land.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 16, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...




Too much blood in the game now. Only way for peace now is complete victory and extermination of one side or the other. Don't get peace after decades of trying to wartime victory. Now it's your ass.

Only borders Israel's gonna eventually return to is Biblical borders. Greater Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 The two state solution was made whole in 1923 when the LoN partitioned Palestine into two unequal parts. The biggest at 78% going to the arab muslims, while the Jews received the smaller at 22%. That should have been the end of the matter, and the LoN should have enforced their decision by armed force when the arab muslims demanded all the land. Running the arab muslims out of trans Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and parts or Saudi would have had the desired effect, and would have resulted in a M.E peace. The original partition was entered into international law and should never have been even discussed at a later date. The UN did not have the authority to force a partition in 1947, which is why it was only ever a pipe dream.
 When the land was occupied it was not illegal so stop trying to enforce laws retrospectively unless you want to see them enforced against your illegal annexing of occupied land.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 16, 2015)

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>



Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 16, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>
> ...



Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?


----------



## CMike (Dec 16, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > ILOVEISRAEL said:
> ...


It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.

So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.


----------



## CMike (Dec 16, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> ...


The problem is that the arab leaders refuse to recognize Israel in any form.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 16, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > ILOVEISRAEL said:
> ...






 When did it become Palestinian land then, as they denied that it was theirs unless it included all of Israel. They forfeited the land when they ignored the LoN mandate and the chance to be part of humanity. How could Israel occupy Palestinian territory in 1948 when they have no territory under international law ?


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 16, 2015)

CMike said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...







 They actually started the invasion in 1947 when elements of the arab muslims started to attack the Jews and Christians of Palestine.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 16, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?



Not the subject of this thread.  And a complete one eighty from your post #10 in this thread.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 16, 2015)

pbel said:


> Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?



I am not at all confused.  The 1949 borders had East Jerusalem as part of Jordan; or better, Jordan 'occupied' East Jerusalem (including the Old City), kicked the Jews out of the Jewish quarter thereof and demolished most of the synagogues and homes there as well.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 16, 2015)

teddyearp, et al,

The Jewish State is going to have to let this go.  



teddyearp said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israelis and Palestinians have to look at the reality of TODAY and sort out how they can both collaborate together and build a modern city and preserve for the religious interests.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

There are no borders.  There are armistice lines.  We should be clear about that.  The armistice lines are not at all relevant with respect to negotiating or establishing borders.  The only legal consideration they deserve, according to my knowledge, and once again feel free to correct me with sources, is the Oslo Accords which state that the 1949 armistice lines are to be the starting point for negotiation of permanent borders.  My point being that the armistice lines themselves have no bearing on any sovereignty over territory.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians.



Exactly.  The agreement or armistice was between Israel and the Arab countries.



Phoenall said:


> Then in 1967 the arab armies attacked Israel and lost gaza and the west bank to Israel in the fight that followed. Then the ceasefire lines moved to encompass all of the west bank and all of gaza. Those are the 1967 "borders"



And that is basically what I am trying to point out in this thread, the irony that seems to be lost on most everyone.

There was much less of a 'Palestine' in 1949 than there is now after 1967.  Egypt totally controlled Gaza, Jordan totally took over the West Bank.  Where is the 'Palestine' there?

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> teddyearp, et al,
> 
> The Jewish State is going to have to let this go.
> 
> ...


Well Israel has fucked it up big time. Maybe we should let the Palestinians have a go at it.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Is this irony lost on everyone but me?



Nope.  The 1967 war was an event that brought the 'Palestinians' into being.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians.
> ...


Indeed, the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949. A country does not cease to exist just because it is occupied. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty over the land.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Is this irony lost on everyone but me?
> ...


Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.



It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949. A country does not cease to exist just because it is occupied. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty over the land.



The problem is that the sovereigns were labelled as occupiers of land that they were actually sovereign over.  Oops.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> ...


Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.



Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political (and religious) expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.
> ...


So they were already there but changed their name? But they were citizens of Palestine since 1925 because they already were living there.

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.



Um.  Yeah.  Exactly.  Bingo.  They were the same place.  There was no Lebanon.  There was no Syria.  There was no Jordan.  There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.  

So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold?  And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 16, 2015)

Folks, this thread is FUBAR.  I was inspired to start it in light of the new Dec 1 rules for I/P, but you all have



> <snip>there may be 10 or 30 pages of the *same old tired 100 year old battles and too many flames to clean the threads and revive them*.



So I will just ask for mod attention and to have it closed.

My intention was to point out the irony of attempting to return to the '1967 borders' (or just previous) which would historically entail Egypt controlling the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlling the West Bank including East Jerusalem. The irony being that there was probably less of a chance of an independent Palestinian state in those areas back then than there is now.  But you childish #$$%#$@%^'s couldn't post anything about said irony and instead derailed this thread by page 3, just as Coyote said they get when the new Dec 1 rules were laid down.

Maybe another time.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
> ...


The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.

Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.

Religion is not a factor.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank.  And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank.  And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.


That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is irrelevant as to what you think about the Armistice Lines.  Today the Green Line is actually only a historical landmark.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank.  And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Armistice Lines were dissipated with the Treaties.  In the case of the West Bank, When the Peace Treaty went into effect, replacing the Armistice with an International Boundary.   

*Article XII Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949 *​
2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.​
*Article 3 -* *International Boundary Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, October 26, 1994
*
1.  The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2.  The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3.  The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4.  The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​As to the Armistice Lines, while they may not be negotiated International Boundaries, they are treated the same way as any other demarcation.  Under Customary Law:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Dec 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> 
> Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.



I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then.  That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon?  And that this can not be changed?  And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 16, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> ...


Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.






Where are those borders in 1949? Example:

*Article V*
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *

*The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949*

*Still there.*


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 17, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians.
> ...







 Not lost on me either as Palestine was not mentioned as an independent state from 1948 to 1972 when the area was under occupation by Egypt and Jordan


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp, et al,
> ...








 They did and they have made a bigger hash of things, just look at the hamas/fatah episodes and the refusal by all sides to call elections


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 17, 2015)

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Is this irony lost on everyone but me?
> ...







 Not for at least 5 years when they tried to steal Jordan and failed with the loss of up to 50,000 Palestinian civilians in one month.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 NOPE wrong again as the UN did not divide Jewish Palestine, it was just a recommendation. Correct Egypt and Jordan are still there less gaza and the west bank. The country was never Palestine, and you have no actual evidence that it was. But it became Israel in 1948 against the wishes of the arab muslims who ignored the reality at their own peril


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 17, 2015)

Phoenall, "P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,

This is still not quite right.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Our friend "P F Tinmore" would have a very valid argument if it were not for one thing:  When the Ottoman/Turkish Governments surrendered, under the Ottomans and Turks, there was no Political Subdivision or Administrative District of Palestine.  Palestine was like saying the Alpine Region, Appalachian Region or the region of the Pacific Ocean; comprises three ethnogeographic groupings— Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.

At the time of the original Armistice and subsequent Treaty, Palestine was not a political subdivision or territory covered as one situated outside the frontiers Turkey. 




Armenia and Kurdistan _(promised in the Treaty of Sevres)_ were not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; and the regions in question were given to Turkey in accordance with the principle of self-determination. In return Turkey renounced "all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty", thus establishing an anti-irredentist policy that has remained a basic element of the Turkish Republic's foreign policy ever since.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Dec 17, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?
> ...



Really? How so?


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 17, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Really? How so?



Here's your post from #10:



Challenger said:


> *Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, *<snip>



And now your one eighty:



Challenger said:


> Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the *Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally *since 1948?



So, what is it?  Borders defined and accepted, or seized illegally?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 17, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Really? How so?
> ...



Ah, I see. My bad, I assumed a greater level of knowledge. The Zionist colonists declared their borders when they declared their "independance" in May 1948 and were recognised as a state on that basis by the Western powers. Every square yard of ground they subsequently captured has therefore been siezed and occupied illegally, right up to the present day.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 17, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


The fact is that Israel never did declare borders.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 17, 2015)

*Folks, this thread was significantly derailed (like something like 60 posts).  As a result I opted to split the thread and move a lot of posts into a new one: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because of the difficulty in seperating out posts there may still be some here that could have been moved and weren't.  Please don't respond to them and continue derailing the thread.*

*For your enlightenment here is the topic and what the OP was attempting to discuss in it:* So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



teddyearp said:


> My intention was to point out the irony of attempting to return to the '1967 borders' (or just previous) which would historically entail Egypt controlling the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlling the West Bank including East Jerusalem. The irony being that there was probably less of a chance of an independent Palestinian state in those areas back then than there is now...


----------



## hadit (Dec 17, 2015)

It's beyond obvious that the ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.  Is there really any controversy about that, given that it's publicly stated by the nations surrounding her?  Short of that, going back to 1967 borders could help erase the humiliation the Arab nations feel at being so completely routed by the tiny, new state of Israel that they thought would be pushed into the sea with little effort.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 17, 2015)

Shusha,  et al,

Well, that is not exactly true.



Shusha said:


> There are no borders.  There are armistice lines.  We should be clear about that.  The armistice lines are not at all relevant with respect to negotiating or establishing borders.  The only legal consideration they deserve, according to my knowledge, and once again feel free to correct me with sources, is the Oslo Accords which state that the 1949 armistice lines are to be the starting point for negotiation of permanent borders.  My point being that the armistice lines themselves have no bearing on any sovereignty over territory.


(REFERENCE)

:*Article II --- Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979*​
*
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine*, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.



*Article 3 - International Boundary --- Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel,  26 October 1994*

1. *The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate* as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the *permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan,* without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

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

Yes, look at where the boundaries are.

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line.  The Palestinians were not a Party to Peace and were not a party to the Armistice; and declined to participate in self-governing programs of the Mandatory, and rejected the inclusion of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Dec 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, look at where the boundaries are.
> 
> ...



Yes, my post was in reference to internal "borders" within what is now Israel and the disputed territories.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.
> 
> ...



The American Indians did not participate in the assignment of European charters for the New World.  The native Africans did not participate in any of the charters for Rhodesia or South Africa.  
Neither agreed to the assignment of land to the European colonists. The native Palestinians had no need to agree to their dispossession.  Grow up Rocco.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.
> 
> ...


It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line.​
Link?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The American Indians did not participate in the assignment of European charters for the New World.  The native Africans did not participate in any of the charters for Rhodesia or South Africa.
> Neither agreed to the assignment of land to the European colonists. The native Palestinians had no need to agree to their dispossession.



Did the Jewish people agree to their dispossession?


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 17, 2015)

Shusha said:


> *The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank. * And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.



And this just adds more irony to the irony of the pre 1967 borders . . . .


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 17, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> ...


that's an unreasonable demand. in order to make Palestine contiguous you would have to break Israel into two tiny partials. Not going to happen.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 17, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > *The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank. * And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.
> ...



Yep.  Everybody would be much happier if the Palestinians and the Gazans would just create States.  But no matter what they seem to be given they just refuse to do so.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 17, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I was rather asking if he was suggesting that Israel cease to exist and be replaced by a one state solution named Palestine under Arab Muslim rule.  Rather than two (realistically three) States, each with defined borders under a treaty (Israel, Palestine and Gaza).  

There are no existing borders now, but a treaty can make them easily enough.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 17, 2015)

montelatici,  Shusha, et al,

Well, I don't exactly understand what your point is, or what your insult is about.  My commentary referenced Treaties directly relevant to the border issue, not some vague charters.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, I want to get younger; and not grow older.

You cannot use the term "dispossession" for two reason:

Relative to the "Border Quetion" --- If the previous sovereign past the title and rights for the territory to the Allied Power.  No sovereign territory was passed to the Arab Palestinians.

The term "dispossession" is the action of depriving a person of land, property, or other possessions.  It is a Civil Matter, protected under the mandate.  It has nothing to do with sovereign territories or boundaries.
The Council of the League of Nations made the assignment for the Mandates, and the Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory.  The exact survey boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"  and were not finalized until several years later. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Wrong again rat boy as the Jews declared to the delineated borders as set down in the 1923 International law, further reinforced by the 1949 amendment to the UN charter. The land that was left was no ones as the arab's had refused to accept the partition plan. So until they accepted the terms of the partition plan they had no claims to the land and any land Israel wrest from the invading squatters could legally become theirs


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...







 Try again as they did to known criteria with the full knowledge of the UN


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,  et al,
> ...







 So when will you be giving up your stolen property, or will you be a two faced hypocrite all your life


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,  et al,
> ...







 GIVEN many times in the past, not our fault that you ignore them


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Could be done with the help of the tunnel builders in gaza. The tunnel would need to be very deep underground so that the terrorists could not use it to mine Israel schools with. Or they could ask allah to give them the power to build a tunnel in the sky out of reinforced transparent concrete


----------



## hadit (Dec 18, 2015)

Challenger said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > ILOVEISRAEL said:
> ...


Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 18, 2015)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...



People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war.  It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.


----------



## hadit (Dec 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


The Jews didn't "invade" Israel.  The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII.  They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea.  It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 18, 2015)

hadit said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



World powers carved out land in the Americas for Puritans, Catholics etc.  It did not make it any less of an invasion.

The Pope (then the world's temporal authority for the Catholic states) carved out the Americas between Portugal and Spain.  Did that make it less of an invasion.

What part of invading a land occupied by native people, settling it and displacing the native people do you not understand.

There is nothing defensive about moving hordes into lands inhabited by native people. 

The Europeans engaged in a war of conquest, an invasion.  The Palestinian natives simply resisted conquest.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. LOL


----------



## hadit (Dec 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Then your complaint is with the world powers at the time, not the Jews who simply moved into their new homeland.  And, of course, they would not have taken more land had the surrounding nations not attacked and been so completely defeated.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Starting to realise that you are a hypocrite now are we, so when will you do what you demand the Jews be forced into doing and leave the lands you occupied. You might find it hard to get a nation to take you in when you do.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 So when will you start to demonise and denounce the Catholic church, calling then invaders, murderers, colonisers etc.

 Again which European country was this that invaded and colonised Palestine ?


----------



## theliq (Dec 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You did not mention the Zionist Terrorists Pheo....WHY


----------



## theliq (Dec 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You are partly right Pheo.......I think I am the only one on here that is Critical of the Catholic Church throughout history.....inparticular their Demonization of Jews mainly but their hideious (sic)crimes against the Jews and Moors in Spain..steve


----------



## theliq (Dec 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


But it didn't have to have this outcome Pheo, The Jews were so Manic to get their own State that they behaved like ISIS are today........even today most Jews feel there could and should be a fairer way and end this schism for both peoples.steve..ps the Palestinians were never a problem to the Jews......quite the reverse.....Yet the Pro-Zionist Lobby try to say otherwise.ie the Palestinians were the easy target.

Yet I never hear you Guys speak out against the Jews real Enemies......The Germans,Croatians,Italians,Russians,Ukrainians,Catholics and all......Who willingly coerst Jews throughout Europe to the Death Camps and Burning Charnels,normally beating them up or murdering Jews.....these were the real Bastards...not the Palestinians at all.WHY DON'T YOU GUYs SPEAK OUT AGAINST THESE REAL BARBARIANS OF RECENT HISTORY,steve


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 19, 2015)

hadit said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


There is a shift in this story. Before the '67 war the West Bank and Gaza were occupied Palestinian territories. Occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel could not win Palestinian territory from Jordan or Egypt because it was not theirs to lose. That is why they are still called occupied Palestinian territories. The '67 borders only define the Palestinian territories that Israel occupied in 1967.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 19, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.


Coulda... shoulda... woulda... Israel holds all the cards now, and all the muscle. Game over. No need to go back to the 1967 borders.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Yes, Tinny, we all know that you will never be satisfied with the 1967 borders, but will only be satisfied with the total erasure of the present State of Israel and surrender of all Jewish-held land. Well, you can't have it back. And, your attitude - widely prevailing amongst Palestinians - is why retreating to the 1967 borders will ultimately not do the Israelis any good, so... why bother? Your (side's) intransigence - so well articulated by you over time - is why you(r side) is now relegated to ever-shrinking scraps of non-contiguous land. Well done. By insisting upon having it all, from a position of inferior strength, you are now doomed to have none of it, in the final analysis. Palestinian Mentality. Brilliant. Not.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This logic defies reality.



P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It is actually the other way around.  The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory _(to be determined by the Allied Powers)_ to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council.  THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This logic defies reality.
> 
> ...


Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, you don't accept the reality.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

What was it called when it was Annex to Jordan?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, you don't accept the reality.
> 
> ...


To everybody besides Britain and Pakistan they were occupied Palestinian territories.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, you don't accept the reality.
> 
> ...



The Palestinian leadership agreed to not resist annexation of the West Bank by Jordan in return for immediate enfranchisement.  On the other hand, they had little choice in the matter.  They got the best deal they could. Only Britain, Pakistan and Iraq recognized the legality of the annexation anyway.

Gaza was never annexed by Egypt.  The All-Palestine Government was the legal government of Gaza from 1948-1959 although under the complete influence of Egypt and had little power.  But was the legal government.  In 1956 Israel, Britain and France occupied Gaza. The British and the French withdrew from Gaza the same year.  Israel maintained its occupation of Gaza until 1957.  In 1959 Egypt  stripped the All Palestine Government of any control and began administering Gaza directly.  In 1962 Egypt allowed the creation of the directly elected Palestinian Legislative Council as a precursor of self-rule and eventual independence.  Then in 1967 Gaza was reoccupied by Israel.

So your claim that Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere were somehow agreeable to Egyptian or Jordanian rule is ridiculous.  They have always sought independence.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2015)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



You're a moron. The Jews fight for survival, not to spread their warped ideology ...


----------



## Coyote (Dec 19, 2015)

So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?




CAIR doesn't get to redefine Israel CAIR girl. Israel defines what it's borders are, not people like you


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

As long as Israel is prepared to engage in perpetual conflict it can define its borders.  If it wants peace, it will have to negotiate its borders.


----------



## Jroc (Dec 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> As long as Israel is prepared to engage in perpetual conflict it can define its borders.  If it wants peace, it will have to negotiate its borders.




Negotiate? you don't negotiate your destruction


----------



## montelatici (Dec 19, 2015)

Well then, perpetual conflict it is. But, how long do you think Israel can maintain complete control over a population of non-Jews that is today equal to the Jewish population and will overtake the Jewish population?


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?









The white part defines Jewish Palestine... a.k.a. Israel...

The orange part defines Arab Palestine... a.k.a. Jordan...

The 1967 borders really don't come into it...

Next slide, please...


----------



## Hollie (Dec 19, 2015)

*Mod Edit - the topic is not Islamism, Jihad, or the dubious ancient history of Islam in the region.  It's whether we should go back to the '67 borders.  Please review the OP and don't derail the thread.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 20, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?


If Israel had any land it would automatically have borders. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 20, 2015)

So, a map drawn in 2005 found on a propaganda site shows the correct borders. Interesting.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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


1.  There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2.  Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her.  Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


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


1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​
Link?


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What source would you accept?  They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region.  Seriously, do a quick Google search.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You said it. You prove it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Oh, brother:

Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
The Ironic History of Palestine
The Truth about the Palestinian People
Who Are The Palestinians?  What And Where Is Palestine?
Was there ever a state called Palestine?

You might as well insist that I prove an object is pulled toward the center of the earth.  Now, do you accept that there never was a nation called "Palestine" in the region?  If you disagree, prove your contention.  I proved mine.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is very typical.  The Palestinian makes a claim that they know cannot be substantiated.  Then when challenged they ask for  the proof of impossibility or use an evidence of absence argument as a negative claim.



P F Tinmore said:


> 1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

The territory to which the Mandate of Palestine was applied, and the Mandate Government of Palestine, where never a specific territory to which the Arab Palestinians had any exclusive control over.  The exception being except for Area "A" in 1995 --- and the Gaza Strip after 2005.

AND, even the Arab Palestinians themselves, periodically raise the issue that they do not have control over their territory by virtue of the Israeli Occupation.

If that is true, then the Palestinians have NEVER had exclusive control of anything.  How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

I don't understand the significance of there being a nation called Palestine, after all there was no nation named Iraq (or the United States or Jordan) before independence was gained by said states.  There was an administrative territorial unit called Palaestina Prima and the Latin Kingdom in Palestine was a Christian state.  But, it does not matter one bit.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

" How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?"

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Nothing in the Covenant (especially Article 22) grants sovereignty to any people or nation by name.  In fact, none of the Class "A" Mandate Territories achieved sovereignty until the late 1940's.



montelatici said:


> " How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?"
> 
> Pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.


*(COMMENT)*

The provisions of Article 22 were, from the standpoint of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers, given effect through the Mandate.


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Once you understand what the importance of understanding what the Government of Palestine was, you will understand the significance.



montelatici said:


> I don't understand the significance of there being a nation called Palestine, after all there was no nation named Iraq (or the United States or Jordan) before independence was gained by said states.  There was an administrative territorial unit called Palaestina Prima and the Latin Kingdom in Palestine was a Christian state.  But, it does not matter one bit.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, with the name of Iraq over Mesopotamia, the Hashemite Prince Faisal becomes King.
With the King of England conferring sovereignty on the Hashemite Prince Abdullah in Transjordan, independence is conferred.  And in a short time later, the Hashemite Kingdom comes into existence.
With the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America is born.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


OK, so you posted some opinion pieces.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Nothing in the Covenant (especially Article 22) grants sovereignty to any people or nation by name.  In fact, none of the Class "A" Mandate Territories achieved sovereignty until the late 1940's.
> 
> ...



For the inhabitants.  The inhabitants at the time of writing, not colonizing Europeans, were Muslims and Christians.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory.



Article 22 disagrees with you, as does the mandate.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...



Because it was illegal when Zionist israel did it.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?


The borders they themselves declared on 14th May 1948


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


There was never an independant "state" called Palestine, possibly, but that's different from there being a Palestinian "nation" or cultural/ethnic entity. Within the UK we have several regions, none of which are nations and all of which have differing cultures and dialects; just try colonising one of them...


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

You're kidding me --- right?



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Power used the Mandate for Palestine as the vehicle in they chose to give meaning to Article 22.  

Article 22 does not mention Palestine and the Mandate requires that consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

*ARTICLE 16*.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
[/ident]​
Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


If you believe that a nation called "Palestine" existed in that area, please post evidence of such.  Otherwise, my contention stands.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Each of those regions, however, belong to the UK, no?  They do not comprise independent nations.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 21, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

I would have agreed to this IF, and only IF, the Arab League forces had not violated Article 2 of the Charter.



Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

But since the Arab Forces did advance into Israel, any territory the Israelis brought under control in the wake of an Arab Retreat, is newly acquired territory.

And until such time that the Arab League forces establish a Peace Treaty, Israel might still hold that territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

They did not belong to the UK.  They were given on trust to the Mandatories to implement Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states in part:

*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them *and which are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

It is my understanding that Israel did not declare borders in 1948.  No?


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Right, because it's illegal (only when Israel does it, of course) for a nation to defend itself and seize territory in the process.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91


90  Permanent Mandates Commission, _Minutes of the Thirty-Second (Extraordinary) Session Devoted to Palestine_ (Geneva: League of Nations, 1937, pp. 86-7.

91  See, in general, Ian Brownlie, _Principles of Public International Law_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), pp. 537-43; Malcolm N. Shaw, _International Law_ (Cambridge: Grotius Publications Limited, 1991), pp. 178-81; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, Patrick Daillier, Alain Pellet, _Droit international public_ (Paris: LGDJ, 1992), pp. 395-8; Peter Malanczuk, _Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law_ (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 76-7; Georges J. Perrin, _Droit international public: sources, sujets, caractéristiques_ (Zurich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, 1999), pp. 613-24; Joe Verhoeven, _Droit international public_ (Bruxelles: Larcier, 2000), pp. 278-95; Oppenheim, _supra _note 4, pp. 510-23.
------------------------------
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

123  British Government, _Report on the Administration under Mandate of Palestine,_ 1924, p. 6.

124  Norman Bentwich, _England in Palestine_ (London: The Mayflower Press, 1932), p. 106.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


So, what you're saying is, the area was in the process of maybe some day being recognized as a nation, but the world powers that were doing so changed their minds after the war and decided to create a Jewish state instead?

And, as a result, the Arab nations surrounding Israel attempted to wipe out the Israeli state, but failed spectacularly.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> You're kidding me --- right?
> 
> ...



"The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Many of them were independant kingdoms in ancient times, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. The people in a particular territory develop their own culture and language over time. They become their own "nation" as Palestinians did, independance is irrelevant.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Yes. Correct! It is illegal for a nation to acquire territory in war, defensive or otherwise.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Thus it would be illegal for any Arab nation in the region to destroy the nation of Israel and seize its territory.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The Arab states attempted to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians by the European colonizers.  The native inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians.  The Zionists came from Europe.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> They did not belong to the UK.  They were given on trust to the Mandatories to implement Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states in part:
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them *and which are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> ...



Article 22 sets out principles of well-being and development under the tutelage of advanced nations.  At best, you might be able to argue that the intent is the self-determination of the inhabitants of the territories, but even that is a stretch.  But no where does Article 22 name or specify which peoples are to obtain sovereignty nor does it assign sovereignty.  

Further the Article specifies "inhabitants".  The people who lived there.  Denying that entire groups of people didn't actually live there or somehow don't count is silly.  

Using this to claim that the Arab Muslim Palestinians and only the Arab Muslims Palestinians had sovereignty in 1922 is so much of a stretch it baffles the mind.  Truly.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Still, in the absence of a two or three state solution, its certainly an option to cede the territories to Jordan and Egypt.  This wouldn't preclude the eventual independence of a State of Palestine or Gaza.  They would just have to make arrangements through Jordan and Egypt instead of Israel.  That would at the very least eliminate the conflict with the Jewish people.  Assuming, of course, that Jordan and Egypt remain reasonable in keeping their peace treaties and existing relationship with Israel.  

My sense of it is that if the Palestinians were under Arab Muslim rule, they wouldn't bother with the whole independence thing.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> It is my understanding that Israel did not declare borders in 1948.  No?





Have they ever at any time had borders then?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that Israel did not declare borders in 1948.  No?
> ...


No.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that Israel did not declare borders in 1948.  No?
> ...



Given that neither Jordan nor Egypt had any claim to sovereignty in these territories and given that there is no other entity in 1967 which could make such a claim other than Israel -- there are only two choices:

1.  Israel has the only legal claim to sovereignty over the entire territory.
2.  There was an absence of sovereignty in all or some of the territories.

Personally, I believe #1 is correct at the time we are discussing, due to the legal instruments which were in place at the time. 

The only reasonable argument one could make is that since Israel failed to exercise her sovereignty, she had lost it.  But that is difficult to argue given that the territories were under occupation by Jordan and Egypt and she was prevented from exercising her sovereignty.

But in the time frame we are discussing, only Israel has a valid claim.


----------



## hadit (Dec 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Interesting.  Using ethnic cleansing to...fight ethnic cleansing.

Why again is it that the surrounding nations, parts of which made up the area, refuse to absorb those displaced by the wars of aggression against the new Israeli state?  I mean, if parts of the UK were designated by the world powers to be set aside to create a new independent state, I would expect the UK to resettle anyone displaced, not force them into concentration camps.  It's almost as if the surrounding nations value the displaced more as political pawns than as people.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.



Well, that sounds suspiciously like a logical fallacy, even if true and I doubt it is.  

Who is sovereign over the territory, then?  Who was the previous sovereign?  What legal instrument transferred that sovereignty from the previous sovereign?  In what year did that sovereignty come into effect?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.
> ...


It is the people of the place who have sovereignty. Governments and states have sovereignty only as extensions of the people's sovereignty.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is the people of the place who have sovereignty. Governments and states have sovereignty only as extensions of the people's sovereignty.



That's a nice, romantic notion, but not true.  Sovereignty is not a individual or even a collective right of groups of peoples, per se.  Even peoples who seek self-determination through secession can't necessarily achieve sovereignty.  There are laws against changing the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.
> ...





Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice both describe the West Bank and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law, However Israel's government calls all of them "disputed" rather than "occupied",[1] Israel's government also argues that since the Gaza disengagement of 2005, it does not militarily occupy the Gaza strip, a statement rejected by the United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch because Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace, waters, and borders.[2][3]

*Israeli judicial decisions*
In two cases decided shortly after independence, in the Shimshon and Stampfer cases, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations.[23] In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that the Geneva Convention insofar it is not supported by domestic legislation "does not bind this Court, its enforcement being a matter for the states which are parties to the Convention". They ruled that "Conventional international law does not become part of Israeli law through automatic incorporation, but only if it is adopted or combined with Israeli law by enactment of primary or subsidiary legislation from which it derives its force". However, in the same decision the Court ruled that the Fourth Hague Convention rules governing belligerent occupation did apply, since those were recognized as customary international law.[24]

The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal.[25] In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.[26][27]

In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:

The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).[28][29]​
It strikes me that, if those territories are not "occupied" but belong to Israel, then all of it's inhabitants are or should be Israeli citizens, so anything but a one-state solution would be meaningless.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...It is the people of the place who have sovereignty...


True. And today, the 'people of the place' are called Jews, and Israelis.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...It is the people of the place who have sovereignty...
> ...



and Palestinians.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> ...and Palestinians.


Not for long, the way things are going...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It is the people of the place who have sovereignty. Governments and states have sovereignty only as extensions of the people's sovereignty.
> ...


There are laws against changing the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign.​
That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 21, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ...and Palestinians.
> ...



Wishful thinking on your part sweetcheeks.

We have two peoples and they need to figure out a way to coexist.

One, two or three states?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Status of territories captured by Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...



from same source

*Disputed[edit]*
_The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites who support the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history,[6][7] and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations. They regard the territories as "disputed" based on the following legal arguments:
_

_No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.[6]_

_In line with the above idea, the Israeli government has officially stated that its position is that the territories cannot be called occupied, as no nation had clear rights to them, and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[7]_

_Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War.[6]_
_The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.[7][8][9]_
_Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once the Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".[10]_
_Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."[6]_

Though I agree with you that Israel did not especially want to exercise its sovereignty on the territories in question.  And the Oslo Accords changed everything anyway. But in 1967 the choices were limited -- it was Israel's, it was Jordan's/Egypt's or it was a sovereignty vacuum.  
​


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.



Well, its the rights of the sovereign, not the people, per se.  But let's not get this too off-topic.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 21, 2015)

Hey guys, how's everybody doing?  I was in the neighborhood and thought I would pop in and say,_ "Hi"._ 

*Teddy*, they're going back to the '67 borders, because that is the only option on the table.  I don't know how many times people have to be told, you can't hold onto land seized in a war.  Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in the '67 war.  That land wasn't Israel's.  Is not Israel's now.  And will never be Israel's.

It doesn't matter what name you call the Pals, they are the indigenous residents of this area and they have inalienable rights they can't give away or have them taken from them. 

And an occupation doesn't require a state to be occupied, or a sovereign occupied state.  The only requirement is that a foreign force is exerting effective control over an area it has no clear title to.  Israel has no clear title to the areas listed above.

Allowing Israel to keep any part of that land, is the same thing as saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland and that ain't gonna happen.  It's been almost 50 years and there isn't one country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land.  Not one.  I'll say this one more time...

*Conquer by Conquest is illegal.*



*Conquer by Conquest is illegal.*

*

Conquer by Conquest is illegal.*


----------



## Shusha (Dec 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> *Conquer by Conquest is illegal.*



Irrelevant to the conversation.  The correct question is whether or not acquisition of territory is legal under some circumstances in a defensive war.  Or if Israel acquired any territory not already under its sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 21, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > That is true. It would be a violation of the rights of a people to their sovereignty in a defined territory. Territorial integrity is a basic right of the people.
> ...


*popular sovereignty*
*1.* the doctrine that *sovereign power is vested in the people* and that those chosen by election to govern or to represent must conform to the will of the people.

Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty
--------------------------
_Recognizing_ that the *Palestinian people* is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

_Expressing its grave concern_ that the * Palestinian people* has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

_Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

_Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the *Palestinian people* to self-determination,

1. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable rights of the *Palestinian people in Palestine*, including:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(_b_) The right to *national independence and sovereignty;*

2. _Reaffirms also_ the inalienable right of the *Palestinians* to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
------------------------------
Hmmm, no mention of a state or government.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 22, 2015)

Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 22, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Irrelevant to the conversation.


You say it's irrelevant, but then in the very next statement, try to justify it.




Shusha said:


> The correct question is whether or not acquisition of territory is legal under some circumstances in a defensive war.


 _"...acquisition of territory...in a defensive war"_ , is just paraphrasing _"conquer by conquest"._

You cannot acquire territory at the point of a gun.  It doesn't matter if that is an "offensive" gun, or a "defensive" gun. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.  And I think we all agree, what happened for 6 days in 1967, was a war.

Trying to say it was a defensive war, is like saying the Bush Doctrine is legal and it's not. 




Shusha said:


> Or if Israel acquired any territory not already under its sovereignty.


You don't acquire territory that's already yours.  You don't occupy your own home.  International law clearly states an occupational force cannot take sovereignty over a territory it occupies.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.


Exactly.  You can't move into a neighborhood and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.



Israel's right to sovereignty is rooted in the fact that the Jewish people had a existing claim to the land due to their historical national homeland there from which they were driven out and ethnically cleansed by force.  This gives them the right of return.  

This is NOT to say that the Palestinians people do not also have rights.  They do.  Of course.  Again, my side, which is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, grants rights to BOTH people, not just one.  And it grants those rights based on the exact same reason.  

The anti-Israel side claims that conquest and ethnically cleansing a land and forcing people into a diaspora is a valid way of removing sovereignty from them.  That the reason the Jewish people no longer have claim to the land is because they were successfully conquered and driven out.  And if you believe that, it is fine.  But it is hypocritical of you to then turn around and state that Israel cannot claim the territories by conquest and ethnic cleansing.  And it is hypocritical for you to claim that those Palestinians who were conquered and expelled or driven out by war have the right to return through the generations.  You can't play both sides of the coin depending on which group you are speaking of.  

And yes, some Palestinians have been in the land for a very long time. _So have the Jewish people_.  There has also been conquests (please note the change in language, religion, modes of dress, and a host of other cultural factors) and immigration, both of Jews from the diaspora and of groups from many other cultures and peoples.  None of these things negates the rights of both peoples in land in question.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 22, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> <snip> Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in the '67 war.



But from whom?  They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine.  It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 22, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> _"...acquisition of territory...in a defensive war"_ , is just paraphrasing _"conquer by conquest". _



Not.  Defending your territory from aggression and then keeping territory which places you in a better defensive position against hostile neighbors is not "conquest".  And it is entirely permissible, and expected, to do so.  International law differentiates between wars of aggression and wars of defense.  



> You don't acquire territory that's already yours.  You don't occupy your own home.


Exactly so.



> International law clearly states an occupational force cannot take sovereignty over a territory it occupies.


Not so.  International law states that an occupying force can not use aggression to strip sovereignty from another and forcibly transfer it to itself.  However, the occupation of land which a sovereign permits, or occupation of a land which is a sovereignty vacuum or occupation of a land which already belongs to you carries different legislation.

And that is why the sovereignty of the territory in question is so key.  But it seems no one else has the guts to take a position on that.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 22, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> But from whom?  They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine.  It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?



Teddy, I was hoping one of the anti-Israeli crowd would attempt to answer this.  But apparently they can see the pitfalls of any answer they would be able to give.

Neither Jordan nor Egypt had any rights to sovereignty in these territories, to my knowledge.  Egypt was not part of the Mandate process, so acquisition of territory and changing borders without a treaty would be a neat legal trick.  Jordan's territory was clearly outlined geographically by treaty, so she has no claim (and she has since renounced it anyway). 

The national homeland for the Jewish people (Israel), as outlined in the Mandate for Palestine and other instruments, included all the territory up to the border of Jordan.  There was no other sovereign and there was no other provision for an additional sovereign.  The only other choice is an absence of sovereignty,due to Israel not fully exercising her sovereignty under hostile conditions (read: wars of aggression).


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 23, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> But from whom?  They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine.  It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?


It doesn't matter who they seized it from.  It was seized in a war.  And it is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Not.  Defending your territory from aggression...


Invading a sovereign nation, is not defense, its aggression.  Article 51 of the UN Charter states the only two ways one nation can attack another nation, legally.  And rolling your tanks into Egypt, was not one of them.




Shusha said:


> and then keeping territory...


Keeping territory that you seized in a war, is conquest.




Shusha said:


> which places you in a better defensive position against hostile neighbors is not "conquest".


It doesn't matter what reason you make up, you cannot hold onto land seized in a war.




Shusha said:


> And it is entirely permissible, and expected, to do so.  International law differentiates between wars of aggression and wars of defense.


In either one, holding onto land seized in a war was outlawed at the end of WWII.  The reason it was outlawed, was a direct result of the actions taken by the Axis Powers.

Germany made up its own bullshit reasons why it had to go into Poland in order to defend the fatherland.  Saying its okay for Israel to hold onto that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

Why do you wanna do the same thing the Nazis did?




Shusha said:


> Not so.


It is so and here's the link...

_"Under occupation law, the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the occupied territory..."_​



Shusha said:


> International law states that an occupying force can not use aggression to strip sovereignty from another and forcibly transfer it to itself.  However, the occupation of land which a sovereign permits, or occupation of a land which is a sovereignty vacuum or occupation of a land which already belongs to you carries different legislation.


No, it doesn't say that at all.




Shusha said:


> And that is why the sovereignty of the territory in question is so key.  But it seems no one else has the guts to take a position on that.


Israel has no sovereign title to that land.  None. 

 And quite frankly, all this talk about ancestral home seems a little hard to swallow in light of the fact that in its entire 5000 year history, only *414 years* were spent under Jewish rule. That's 8%.  Jews ancestral home makes up only 8% of the entire time that area had people living in it.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Invading a sovereign nation...




Which sovereign nation did Israel invade in 1967?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Israel has no sovereign title to that land.  None.



What, specifically, excludes Israel from sovereignty over that land?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> And quite frankly, all this talk about ancestral home seems a little hard to swallow in light of the fact that in its entire 5000 year history, only *414 years* were spent under Jewish rule. That's 8%.  Jews ancestral home makes up only 8% of the entire time that area had people living in it.



What's your point?  That rights to the land should be given to the peoples who were sovereign the longest?  So Rome?  Please.


----------



## Indofred (Dec 23, 2015)

CMike said:


> Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.



Because they knew the Jews were a set of bastards out to steal their land.
That proved right.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 23, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > But from whom?  They did not 'seize' it from a sovereign nation called Palestine.  It was territory under the complete control of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, respectively. So returning to 1967 and giving back land that "never will belong to Israel" means giving it back to who had it in 1967, doesn't it?
> ...



What about the second half Bill?  Too tricky for you to address?  Again, if Israel returns to 1967 borders, that would mean they would have to give the territory back to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, wouldn't it?



Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Invading a sovereign nation...
> ...



Shusha, a late welcome to the fray.  As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 23, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Shusha, a late welcome to the fray.  As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.



Thanks for the welcome.  Of course its being ignored.  They can't answer the question without destroying their own arguments. They know damn well that if they say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria had sovereignty that sovereignty had been gained through a war of aggression which is against their rules.  They can't say that "Palestine" had sovereignty since "Palestine" didn't exist.  They can't say that Israel had sovereignty because Israel must not be sovereign at all costs (even though Israel has a clear claim).  What's left?  A sovereign vacuum, which they know darn well can come under the authority of another sovereign if that sovereign exercises effective control over it.  They're screwed.


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2015)

Indofred said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Why were arabs attacking Jews in Israel before it even became a state.
> ...


And they got their butts thoroughly kicked.  They're still ticked about it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha, a late welcome to the fray.  As Bill said, "It doesn't matter", but ultimately, the difficult questions seem to get ignored by the anti crowd.
> ...


That's really the bottom line here.  That area was not home to a distinct, independent nation.  The world created one there, and it's been successfully defending itself ever since.


----------



## teddyearp (Dec 23, 2015)

Shusha said:


> They know damn well that if they say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria <snip>



I totally agree, but just for kicks, and I do not know why Bill mentioned the Golan, but I think we should keep the Golan out of the discussion. The PA doesn't lay any claim to it, it never had any, so why should it even be considered?


----------



## CMike (Dec 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Claiming that people that lived on another continent somehow had a right to sovereinty in land already inhabited by other people over said native inhabitants is abrurd.


Those people already had two independent Jewish states in those areas. The "palestinians" never had one.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 25, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...



Because it gives the arab muslim filth and their anti-jew vermin allies something to attack the jews with.  From 1948 - 1967 there was no Israeli presence in the West bank, but still the arab muslim human feces attacked Israeli jews via terrorism relentlessly, possibly even more than today.

Think shabaa farms; in 2000 the UN certified Israel's exit from Lebanon, but that would leave the hezbollah/iran/arab muslim terrorist filth without a manufactured/artificial excuse to continue to attack Israel and dig for low IQ, uninformed, clueless supporters worldwide.  Having the shabaa farm nonsense gives them a fig leaf with which to continue to pretend they are a "resistance" group, even if there is nothing legitimate about them.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > But under international law - they've always been referred to as occupied territories - that's even upheld by Israeli courts.
> ...


Jews had no sovereign rights to any part of Palestine,but they did co-erse the  UN and bribed others to support them.....Even after 1948 Israel were NOT A LEGAL ENTITY as this had to be ratified by the UN Security Council ..........WHICH IT NEVER WAS.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> ...


I HAVE REPORTED YOU FOR FILTH,RACISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM.............SO MUCH FOR YOUR "VERMIN,HUMAN FECES,ETC.,AD-NAUSIUM.

U R A MORON


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> I would have agreed to this IF, and only IF, the Arab League forces had not violated Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> ...


But since the Arab Forces did advance into Israel,...​
Do you have proof of that?


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> What about the second half Bill?  Too tricky for you to address?  Again, if Israel returns to 1967 borders, that would mean they would have to give the territory back to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, wouldn't it?


They're not giving, they're leaving.  You cannot give, what you don't have.  All that is required for Israel to do, is leave.  It needs to vacate the area it seized during the '67 war.

One thing is absolutely certain, Israel will not be allowed to keep that land.  Any of it.  You would think after almost 50 years, they'd would catch the clue.  Unfortunately, much like a neutered dog, they don't get it.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> What, specifically, excludes Israel from sovereignty over that land?


The people that have been living there for the past 2000 years.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> I totally agree, but just for kicks, and I do not know why Bill mentioned the Golan, but I think we should keep the Golan out of the discussion. The PA doesn't lay any claim to it, it never had any, so why should it even be considered?


Because it is part of the area seized during the '67 war. 

But that's Syria's deal, so if you like, we can exclude that from the discussion.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

hadit said:


> That's really the bottom line here.  That area was not home to a distinct, independent nation.


It doesn't have to be.  It's home to an indigenous population of Arabs and they have an inalienable right to self determination.



hadit said:


> The world created one there, and it's been successfully defending itself ever since.


An occupational force, cannot claim self defense.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

hadit said:


> And they got their butts thoroughly kicked.  They're still ticked about it.


You've seen too many episodes of _Walker, Texas Ranger._


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

CMike said:


> Those people already had two independent Jewish states in those areas. The "palestinians" never had one.


The 2nd one was forced upon them without their approval.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 26, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.



Why?  

How will doing so have the slightest impact on the intolerant arab muslim diseased mind that only they can be sovereign in the mideast?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 26, 2015)

rhodescholar,  et al,

The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.

03/26/1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty
10/26/1994 
	

 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty



rhodescholar said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The answer to the question as to:  "Why don't we call them the 1949 borders?"  It is somewhat political and somewhat a crafty attempt to roll-back the clock.

First, the 1949 Armistice Lines are essentially the same as what we call the pre-1967 Borders.

The pre-1967 Boundaries (the original 1949 Armistice Lines) do not take into account the territories conceded in the Peace Treaties of the land taken during the subsequent conflicts in which the Arab Nations were the aggressors.

The entire reason for the Arab insistence on the Pre-1967 Borders is to reset the 1967-1973 War outcomes to a point before the Arab Loss.   If the Israelis accept this, the Palestinians will gain total control of Jerusalem, and set the conditions for the Arab Militaries to cut Israel in half along the axis of the 32ºN to the 32º 30'N Parallels where the line of march is merely 9 to 11 miles _(at a combat advance of armor 5 MPH - that is a 2 Hour to the Mediterranean Beach)_.  Using Russian Armed Assault Gunship / Attack Helicopter any penetration could have  fires in place and on Tel Aviv in less that 4 minutes.

*Those indefensible 1967 borders*
The Economist -- Democracy in America
May 23rd 2011, 13:08 BY M.S.

*US Military Chiefs Advised Against Judea-Samaria Pullout in '67*
Declassified document obtained by Arutz Sheva shows Joint Chiefs agreed Israel must not give up Judea, Samaria.




The Arab idea, and the danger to Israel, is that a complete withdrawal from Samaria and Judea would allow the West Bank to put in place a complete artillery line on the long axis (north to south) of the Central Mountains that could cover the entire mid-section of Israel _(no defense at all)_.

That is why the Hostile Arab Palestinians want the pre-1967 borders conceded before any negotiations for Peace begins.  The know that once the Israelis give up their ability to defend Israel, it will only be a matter of time before the Jewish State is militarily defeated and collapses.

*‘Moderate’ Palestinian Official Says Palestine Territory Spans from the ‘River to the Sea’ — Guess What That Means*
The Blaze, Jun. 13, 2013 8:28am Sharona Schwartz

Jibrill Rajoub _(a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee)_ now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.” This includes all of the territory in Israel, including all of Jerusalem, which Israel has declared as its capital, all of Tel Aviv, where the United States embassy sits, all of Haifa and Nazareth in the north, Beersheba and Eilat in the south. Rajoub’s “occupied lands” also covers Hamas-ruled Gaza from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Compiled by Paul Bogdanor

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(_Akhbar al-Yom_, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” _Middle East Quarterly_, Fall 2011)

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, _Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger_[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“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… 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.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(_New York Times_, August 2, 1948)​
The threat has not changed since the defeat of the Arab League Forces, the Arab Liberation Army and the Holy War Army in 1949.  And as we enter the 21st Century, the strategy has not changed.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Well done R

I've always found it odd that Israel's use of the area set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland is referred to as an occupation. Wasn't this area designated by the British as being available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and isn't this exactly what the Israeli's are doing while at the same time doing everything in their power to share the land with a hostile Arab people. Patiently waiting for the hostilities to end so life can move forward ? 

The 67 borders were never accepted by the Arab nations. So why all the fuss ? Neither were the 49 borders. It wasn't until very recently that demands of "returning" land ( land that was never theirs in the first place ) have popped up. The simple reality is it seems like just another ploy to destabilize the Israeli position.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> rhodescholar,  et al,
> 
> The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> ...


Jibrill Rajoub _(a member of the Palestinian Fatah Central Committee)_ now suggests in a telephone interview to a Qatari television station that Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, saying he considers all of that area to be “occupied lands.”​
Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Which confirms my assertions that no Jewish controlled area is acceptable to the Arabs of this area. 

Its blatant bigotry and prejudice 

The Judaic people, the indigenous people of this area have every right to one small slice. Why the Arabs can't be satisfied with their 99.9% isn't much of a mystery. Its blatant prejudice and bigotry


----------



## Hollie (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > rhodescholar,  et al,
> ...


A member of the Fatah franchise of _Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc.,_ is making those bellicose claims? 

Have him forward that in a strongly worded email to the IDF. 

Not to throw the brakes on that runaway train of heady islamo-cluelessness but I'm thinking that Jibrill (_a member of the Palestinian Fatah Dead Man Walking Central Committee) _Rajoub is going to quickly become acquainted with an expression commonly directed to such pompous islamo-whining: _pffffft_.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


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


There is the proof right there.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1,  et al,

Yes, I agree --- anything west of the Dead Sea/Jordan River, was simply territory surrendered to that Allied Powers.



Boston1 said:


> I've always found it odd that Israel's use of the area set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland is referred to as an occupation. Wasn't this area designated by the British as being available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland and isn't this exactly what the Israeli's are doing while at the same time doing everything in their power to share the land with a hostile Arab people. Patiently waiting for the hostilities to end so life can move forward ?
> 
> The 67 borders were never accepted by the Arab nations. So why all the fuss ? Neither were the 49 borders. It wasn't until very recently that demands of "returning" land ( land that was never theirs in the first place ) have popped up. The simple reality is it seems like just another ploy to destabilize the Israeli position.


*(COMMENT)*

And just as the Treaty of Lausanne said:

*ARTICLE 16*.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories* and islands being settled or *to be settled by the parties concerned*.​
I find almost impossible to believe that Pro-Palestinians did not understand the customary laws of the day.  But clearly, the Arab Palestinians were not a "concerned party" except as the people of the enemy Occupied Territory between 1918-1920, and then a people of the territory to which the Mandate applied.  Sovereignty and Independence, whatever else was said, was in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The Allied Powers could have carved-up the territory any way that served them.

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,

You do this to me all the time!!!!!



P F Tinmore said:


> ​There is the proof right there.


*(QUESTION)*
For the benefit of an old man:

•  WHERE IS THE PROOF (that you speak of)?​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 26, 2015)

Hollie, P F Tinmore,  et al,

The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day



Hollie said:


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


*(QUESTION)*

The question as to which country hold the territory is the starting point.  

What does Israel have control --- such that it denies the Palestinian the rights of 1988 self-determination???

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> It doesn't have to be.  It's home to an indigenous population of Arabs and they have an inalienable right to self determination.



It is home to TWO indigenous populations.  They both have the inalienable right to self-determination.  They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel.  But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Hollie, P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day
> 
> ...


I think the answer is addressed in the Hamas Charter with all the areas in question being viewed as a waqf: an entitlement to Moslems. The Hamas Charter uses that term specifically. 

At its core, this is a religious war as viewed by Islamists.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed. Murder and terrorism are certainly illegal acts. 

Now if you want to consider it a war, then I think Israel is being damn lenient.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> rhodescholar,  et al,
> 
> The pre-1967 Borders are essentially the 1949 Armistice Lines, as modified by the two Treaties of Peace with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> ...



My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2015)

2/3 Palestinians support stabbing Jews and 80% reject a 2 State solution.  That's from a Palestinian poll.

You can't have peace with evil savages.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> It is home to TWO indigenous populations.  They both have the inalienable right to self-determination.  They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel.  But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.


Yes and no.

Yes, there are two indigenous populations:

Palestinian-Arabs
Palestinian-Jews
And they both have the right to self determination.

No, many Arab leaders (including Hamas) have publically stated they'll accept a two state solution.  Israel doesn't want peace.

If Israel wanted peace, they wouldn't be breaking all the ceasefires.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.


They're living in the place their forefathers came from and they're not going anywhere.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> You do this to me all the time!!!!!
> 
> ...


That is because you keep ducking my questions.

I can find no documentation where Israel has ever acquired any land.

Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge in this area you can come up with one.


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> 
> I got the idea for this discussion from this thread here:
> 
> ...



you don't get '67 borders after repeatedly waging war and losing. 

*shrug*

and they aren't "occupied". they just refuse to govern themselves.


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.
> ...



their "forefathers" didn't come from israel. and people throughout history have been moved around. funny the terrorist supporting jew haters only whine about israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Hollie, P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "proof" is manifested in the "reality" of the day
> 
> ...


1988 is late in the game.


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The so called'67 borders were never borders.



who said you have a right to exist, loser?

fact is, it, like you, exist.

the world is better off with israel than with you, but whatchagonnado?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> ...


Off topic.


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



in your limited opinion. you're the one who raised right to exist. i responded accordingly.

it must really be awful being as disgusting as you are.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It is home to TWO indigenous populations.  They both have the inalienable right to self-determination.  They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel.  But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.
> ...



Alright....now we are getting somewhere.  I have questions for you. 

1.  Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population?  Does it remove their identity?  If, for example, we remove Palestinian Arabs from "Palestine" do they cease to be "Palestinians"?  Why or why not?

2.  Does a group with a right to self-determination have the right to self-identify?  That is -- to determine for themselves who is or who is not part of their group?  Or should that be imposed on outsiders?  Why or why not?  For example, can Israel determine who is, or who is not, a Palestinian?  

3.  If the rule of self-identification is not the guiding principle for self-determination what is (or what should it be)?  Residency? Paternity?  What criteria does one use to determine who is a "Palestinian Arab" and who is a "Palestinian Jew"?  

4.  If the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, we are just quibbling about where, or how big? aren't we?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


1. Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population? Does it remove their identity? If, for example, we remove Palestinian Arabs from "Palestine" do they cease to be "Palestinians"? Why or why not?​
Information on some of that here @ 41:15


----------



## Hollie (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


You have cut and pasted this YouTube video multiple times across multiple threads. Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc., are not going to grant a right of return to the beggars and squatters you call "Pal'istanians".


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha.

Oops, sorry about the video.

The info is about nationality tied to the land not to a government or state. The law requires a new state to grant citizenship to normal residents. It is a violation of law to denationalize groups of people.

BTW, closed caption works...sort of.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

rhodescholar said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > About those 1967 borders.  Why do we cling to this year, 1967?  What was different about the borders in 1967?  They were the same *from 1949 through June 1967!*  Why don't we call them the 1949 borders? We hear all this talk about how Israel has been 'illegally' and 'immorally' 'occupying' Gaza and the West Bank since 1967. And how bad they treat the Palestinians in said 'occupied' territories.
> ...


1st TIME I HAVE REPORTED ANYONE,BUT FOR YOU CURR,IT WAS A PLEASURE


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2015)

1967?  Why so short sighted.  Let's go back to the Iron Age and reset the borders!


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


What "THE BEGGARS" you drove out of their homes,exiled,murdered and maimed in 1948.....of course they have Right of Return,YOU STOLE THEIR LAND AND HAVE CONTINUED TO UP TO AND INCLUDING TODAY 27.12.2015..........It makes this even more shameful due to the recent history of the Jewish people.........for you and the  Barbarian Roadscholar and others,to be  so hateful only emphasises your total Barbarity


----------



## Hollie (Dec 26, 2015)

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The silly "stealing the land" meme is getting old, sweetie.

27.12.20000. My, where has the time gone?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > It is home to TWO indigenous populations.  They both have the inalienable right to self-determination.  They were both given self-determination with the creation of Jordan and Israel.  But the Arab collective refuses to accept a Jewish national homeland.
> ...



Ridiculous, 
The British mandate has so far been divided into three main areas. Jordan ( ~78% ) Gaza ( ~5% ) and Israel ( ~17% ) 

There are presently Gazans Jordanians and Israeli. Palestine isn't a state or a territory, Its an identity held by the remaining Arab population of whatever lineage within the Israeli controlled area. Some outside that area also cling to the term. However, time moves forward and things change. Palestine no longer exists just as Judea no longer exists. Gaza, Jordan and Israel are what now exist. Lets work on facing reality kids. 

Also its quite clear, particularly in the most recent violence who's inciting and who's attempting to contain the violence. Its also quite clear that restrictions are working beautifully, instead of automatic weapons and car bombs the palestinian terroritsts are reduced through restrictions to knives and clunkers. Its more than obvious that the palestinians are responsible for their own conditions. 


Once again the revisionist history simply doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > My solution, and the only sane one, is to deport/expel most of the arab muslims (other than the druze and beduin who are loyal) as they can move back to syria, lebanon, egypt and jordan where their forefathers in the 19th and 20th centuries came from.
> ...



The Arabs of the area are living in Israel now and unless they behave like civilized human beings they are going to get deported abut as fast as you can find the paperwork and drive them to the border.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I'm really not clear on how this MYTH of stolen land got started. The Zionists were BUYING land when the local Arab populations attacked them out of pure prejudice and malice. There was no stolen land


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> ...


Says YOU but who are YOU


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

theliq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Apparently someone who knows what he's talking about ;--) 

The Arabs never recognized the 67 borders until this nonsense about occupation and palestinian land came up. The borders were retroactively challenged not only in law, at the UN and in the palestinian mind set after it became clear Israel had won yet another war of Arab aggression


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Well how wrong you are........the only Myth as you put it was "The Zionist idea that Jews were intitled to Palestine" it was a fraud of course,the Zionists who some of you forget was a TERRORIST(and still is)ORGANIZATION...who used Killings,as their modus-operandi,to illegally take over parts of Palestine prior to 1949 (1922 onwards).

I can quite understand your confusion,because you have been indoctorinated with Standard Zionist Bullshit........but the truth of the matter .......you know no nor the hour


Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


So why the Palestinian reaction in the 1930's onwards when they realized the Zionists were flooding into Palestine ILLEGALY.

Don't bother to respond to me with your Obsequious Zionist Rantings,until you read your history 1920-1948,properly and independently......then we will talk,other than that there is no point.steven........but Welcome to USMB,Boston Numero Uno........Till the next time ...steven


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > rhodescholar said:
> ...


There is NO PAPERWORK according to the Israelis..if there was then Israel would have to admit that they stole Palestine.......Israelis are renown for losing/hiding Paperwork AS WE ALL KNOW(eg:- "We do not have a Nuclear Facility......this denial went on for 40 years"...just one cunning and shabby example but there are truckloads of Israeli Deceit as the world are well aware)


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha.
> 
> Oops, sorry about the video.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your courtesy, Tinmore; it is most appreciated.  Yeah, close captioning is pretty iffy on a lot of these videos.  But I do appreciate the information.  And thank you for pointing out the time so I could limit my concentration to a few minutes and not a video over an hour long.  

A few points.  

The speaker wishes to discuss the "intergenerational commitment of return (of Palestinians) to their homeland".  Do you not see the irony of this?  I mean the utter and complete and total irony?  

She claims that the reason the Jewish people do not have an intergenerational birthright to return to their homeland is because the Jewish people are not (can not) be recognized in international law as a national group.  Does that strike you as a legally convoluted explanation for _excluding the Jewish people from a basic set of human rights_, as set down in IHL?  

It does me.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


PS Boston,in future address Palestine/Palestinians with a CAPITAL "P"...........at least give them that basic Cynosure...thanks steven


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> their "forefathers" didn't come from israel. and people throughout history have been moved around.


You're wrong.

* 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews*​



jillian said:


> funny the terrorist supporting jew haters only whine about israel.


Why would I hate Jews?


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> who said you have a right to exist, loser?
> 
> fact is, it, like you, exist.
> 
> the world is better off with israel than with you, but whatchagonnado?


Off topic post.

*Zone*

*Two*

*Violation!*

If you can't stay on topic, take your egg-less cooter elsewhere.

Otherwise, tell us why Israel can't hold onto the land it seized in the '67 war and will eventually be _forced_ to go back to the '67 borders, just like Hitler was _forced_ out of Poland.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Alright....now we are getting somewhere.  I have questions for you.








1.  Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population?   *No*

  Does it remove their identity?  *No*

If, for example, we remove Palestinian Arabs from "Palestine" do they cease to be "Palestinians"?  *No*

Why or why not?  * It is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.
*
*Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."*​
2.  Does a group with a right to self-determination have the right to self-identify?  *Yes*

  That is -- to determine for themselves who is or who is not part of their group?  *That's a can of worms!  I don't have an answer for that one.*

Or should that be imposed on outsiders?  *I'd say that depends on how you define "outsider", but again, I don't know the answer to that.*

Why or why not?  *See above.*

For example, can Israel determine who is, or who is not, a Palestinian?  *No*

3.  If the rule of self-identification is not the guiding principle for self-determination what is (or what should it be)? *See below.*

Residency?  *Yes*

Paternity? *No*

What criteria does one use to determine who is a "Palestinian Arab" and who is a "Palestinian Jew"?  *Residency.*

4.  If the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, we are just quibbling about where, or how big?  *No, we're not quibbling about that.*

aren't we?  *No*


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



LOL read my history, if you only knew. The Arabs of the time ( the Zionist period ) were desperate to halt the sale of land to the Judaic people, Zionist or not. Yup they made laws forbidding the sales, so Zionists went through third parties, No different than when people make third party purchases here in the USA. 

As for accusations of terrorist acts. Once again at that time the Arabs had just engaged in another pogrom against Israeli existence within palestine. Violent acts where common. War was brewing and the vast majority of terrorism was being committed by the Arabs. What few Judaic people that did fight back were instantly characterized as terrorists. Pretty obviously just more spin to justify the prejudice and bigotry.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Ridiculous,
> The British mandate has so far been divided into three main areas. Jordan ( ~78% ) Gaza ( ~5% ) and Israel ( ~17% )


The British Mandate ended on May 14, 1948.








Boston1 said:


> There are presently Gazans Jordanians and Israeli. Palestine isn't a state or a territory, Its an identity held by the remaining Arab population of whatever lineage within the Israeli controlled area. Some outside that area also cling to the term. However, time moves forward and things change. Palestine no longer exists just as Judea no longer exists. Gaza, Jordan and Israel are what now exist. Lets work on facing reality kids.


It doesn't matter what name you want to attach to it, the indigenous residents of that area, have a right to self determination.




Boston1 said:


> Also its quite clear, particularly in the most recent violence who's inciting and who's attempting to contain the violence. Its also quite clear that restrictions are working beautifully, instead of automatic weapons and car bombs the palestinian terroritsts are reduced through restrictions to knives and clunkers. Its more than obvious that the palestinians are responsible for their own conditions.


If restrictions were working beautifully, there wouldn't be any violence.

It should also be noted, there was no major incidents of violence between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs until the Zionists showed up.



Boston1 said:


> Once again the revisionist history simply doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny


I'm not revising, I'm recalling.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> The Arabs of the area are living in Israel now and unless they behave like civilized human beings they are going to get deported abut as fast as you can find the paperwork and drive them to the border.


Israel has no legal jurisdiction to deport anyone in the occupied territories.

And as far as acting civilized...

Here's a bunch of Israeli's standing around a Palestinian boy (who just deliberately hit by a car) yelling,_* "Die! Die!  Die!"*_






You need to walk your own talk, asshole.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

quote 
PS Boston,in future address Palestine/Palestinians with a CAPITAL "P"...........at least give them that basic Cynosure...thanks steven
end quote

From what I can tell from the history of the word, if you are referencing the Arabic use of the term its actually Filastin but the term palestine was actually more of an insult in reference to the Judaic people of the area such that it detracted from there heritage with Judea, the areas proper name. 

Quote 
Though the definite origins of the word "Palestine" have been debated for years and are still not known for sure, the name is believed to be derived from the Egyptian and Hebrew word _peleshet. _Roughly translated to mean "rolling" or "migratory," the term was used to describe the inhabitants of the land to the northeast of Egypt - the Philistines. The Philistines were an Aegean people - more closely related to the Greeks and with no connection ethnically, linguisticly or historically with Arabia - who conquered in the 12th Century BCE the Mediterranean coastal plain that is now Israeland Gaza. 

A derivitave of the name "Palestine" first appears in Greek literature in the 5th Century BCE when the historian Herodotus called the area _"Palaistinē" (Greek - Παλαιστίνη). _In the 2nd century CE, the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained and the area of Judea was renamed _Palaestina_ in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. 

Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the term Palestine was used as a general term to describe the land south of Syria; it was not an official designation. In fact, many Ottomans and Arabs who lived in Palestine during this time period referred to the area as "Southern Syria" and not as "Palestine." 

After World War I, the name "Palestine" was applied to the territory that was placed under British Mandate; this area included not only present-day Israel but also present-day Jordan. 

Leading up to Israel's independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians. It was not until years after Israeli independence that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were called Palestinians. In fact, Arabs cannot even correctly pronounce the word Palestine in their native tongue, referring to area rather as“_Filastin_.” 

The word Palestine or Filastin does not appear in the Koran. The term _peleshet _appears in the Jewish Tanakh no fewer than 250 times.

End Quote. 


While I do most definitely appreciate the assistance with my English skill, which I apologize for right now, as I know my English is bad. I don't think we should be aggrandizing a term that was intended as an insult to the Judaic people by capitalizing it. Note even the term paleshet, ( last paragraph )  isn't capitalized. 

If there is some reasonable justification for capitalizing this term, I'm all ears but from what I can see it would be like capitalizing any other derogatory.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs of the area are living in Israel now and unless they behave like civilized human beings they are going to get deported abut as fast as you can find the paperwork and drive them to the border.
> ...



descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible. 

First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of.  I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy. 

I'd also add that if this youths household was summarily deported it would likely add significantly to the deterrent of restrictions. 

And actually Israel has every right to deport people from its country. All countries exorcise this right. Your assumption that the area in question was "occupied" was nothing more than that. An assumption. One that also included the MYTH that Israel is occupying land. It isn't. Israel is doing exactly what was intended with that land in the Mandate. Setting up a Jewish national homeland. Thats not occupation, thats nation building.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> quote
> PS Boston,in future address Palestine/Palestinians with a CAPITAL "P"...........at least give them that basic Cynosure...thanks steven
> end quote
> 
> ...


Nice to see you can cut and paste but the reality is you are wrong,wrong,wrong..............some of your comments (Huhum are very strange indeed) I wiil be back


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.
> 
> First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of.  I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly. Push people far enough and they might not exactly show remorse when a terrorist dies. Personally I think its all a tragedy.
> 
> ...


You trying to defend these inhuman assholes, is more insulting than anything I've said.  And trying to defend their actions, show you have no clue what civility is.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 26, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha.
> ...


The speaker wishes to discuss the "intergenerational commitment of return (of Palestinians) to their homeland". Do you not see the irony of this? I mean the utter and complete and total irony?​
No.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > quote
> ...



How so, its like if you called a place shitland and wanted to dignify it with a capitol S


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.
> ...





Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > descending into personal insults is a very good indicator that your position in this discussion has deteriorated to the point where it is indefensible.
> ...



The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more. 

As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ? 

Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.


----------



## theliq (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Well if you delved into Jewish history you would be aware that Jews semenally decended from a mixture of Hittites and Arabs...they are not a Semitic people at all......the only Semitic people are the Palestinians...I trust the weather is fine in downtown Tele-Aviv ..Boston


----------



## Shusha (Dec 26, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> First we need to know the circumstances of this incident you have presented a video of.  I'd suspect that this palestinian just attempted to injury or kill innocent Israeli's and was run down in self defense. In which case the anger and frustration being expressed in understandable if ugly.



Indeed.  This teenager was hit by a car because he was stabbing a 13-year-old Israeli child, in one of hundreds of attacks on innocent Israeli civilians since October of last year.


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


I think you mean't Capital........Why are you calling Israel...SHITLAND??????? go wash your mouth out Bostie.steven


----------



## Shusha (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The speaker wishes to discuss the "intergenerational commitment of return (of Palestinians) to their homeland".  Do you not see the irony of this?  I mean the utter and complete and total irony?
> ...




Maybe a little video will help.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population?   *No*
> Does it remove their identity?  *No*
> If, for example, we remove Palestinian Arabs from "Palestine" do they cease to be "Palestinians"?  *No*
> Does a group with a right to self-determination have the right to self-identify?  *Yes*



Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



LOL no, First Arab is a language group, not a culture, nationality or ethnicity. As far as the Judaic people being descendants of the hittites, as I recall this idea was first proposed in the 1930s and has never been confirmed and has little supporting evidence. The majority of evidence supports the Judaic people being descendant from the bronze age people known as the Hyksos. 

And again with the mythos of palestinians, who you seem to insist are a distance genetic people. Or that seems to be your intent by questioning the origins of the Judaic people. Genetic studies show the palestinians being of general North African descent. A conglomeration of various tribal influences. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, published work ;--) I'd be happy to investigate it. 

Best science thus far traces the judaic people back to the Hyksos, a primitive bronze age people living on the outskirts of other more powerful civilizations like the Egyptians of the time. Once again ref. Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bibble Unearthed" and no its not a secular work. 

It looks like your argument is comprised of "the Judaic people didn't come from Judea and the various people who filtered into the area after the centuries long demise of the Judaic people are. Sorry but thats almost humorous. And not a shred of supporting data ? 

Please lets keep the conversation to demonstrable realities. Wild to the point of comical claims do not advance our conversation or exchange of ideas.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



You are confused. Clearly Israel is the name of a country. Judea was the name of the former province under Roman rule. For various reasons it was changed as an insult to the Judaic people and called palestine. Palestine being a derogatory meant to minimize Jewish identification with ancient Judea since at this time Judaic people had been vanquished and largely driven from Judea. 

So as a derogatory word I am hesitant to lend it any credence with a capital. As I said if instead of palestine we called it shitland, would you dignify the derogitory with a capital ? Oh and one other element of confusion. I don't consider ANY of the areas under Israeli influence to be palestine or ever palestinian. The area was always Judea as I am hesitant to use the derogatory reference applied to is by the enemies of Israel/Judea. 

Oh and you might be interested to know that the word palaistine is Greek and can be translated to mean "wanderer" 

You might also find it interesting that its very very hard to find a reference to the word when considering the local Arabs references to their own nationality of ethnicity PRIOR to the advent of revisionist history within the curriculum of "palestinian" run UN schools. 

And yes I do use the term when referencing the Arabic people people found within Judea today. Its simply to difficult to distinguish each as Jordanian, Gazan, West bank, or israeli Arabs. 

Anyway have fun with it, always entertaining discussing this issue. It would seem that nearly every element of the "palestinian" narrative is rife with revisionist histories. Its kinda a game of find the flaw.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Does forceably removing or deporting a population remove their right to be included in a population?   *No*
> ...



Oh and thank you for the help with my spelling. Capitol and capital or words similarly pronounced are difficult for me. 

Also the universal rights issue is interesting. It would seem to me that in times of war certain universal rights are replaced with the geneva conventions. If its not a war then we have criminal acts to consider. Does a criminal enjoy the same inalienable rights as a non criminal ?


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Actually I'm right as usual,considering it was the Canaanites and Moabites that were the original peoples of the Holy Land....you know the peoples that the Jews eliminated to take their land(Sounds a familiar scenario,because that is what you have also been trying to do with the owners the Palestinians up until today)......To claim you are a pure race is putting it mildly...A JOKE......you are not in any way..but you know that already.....Trouble is you Zionists think your corrupt Mantra is fact.....It isn't even real Jews don't believe this errant nonsense......but sadly you do........so much for your Comical Stance.....Joker.....well you may be the Joker but we are not Village Idiots on here,something you should remember when on here.........you are yet another Right Wing Conservative Jew,not revered in Israel but loathed by secular and Ultra Jews...and we all can see why.

There are others on here who have taken us all down this crooked path,to no avail but with some what more interlect


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.
> 
> As far as the areas you mention not being Israeli, is New Mexico not part of the USA ? Is any land won in warfare to be returned and to whom ? Didn't the former owner also acquire it through warfare ? How is it that all these special considerations are heaped upon the israeli's after the fact when none of the same considerations are demanded of others ?
> 
> Its pretty obvious the prejudice and bigotry involved in this issue.


I live in Southern California where this conflict doesn't affect me in any way.  What possible prejudice or bigotry would I have towards either side?

In respect for* Teddy*, I'm going to get back to the topic of the thread...

An occupying power cannot attain sovereignty over the territory it occupies.  Therefore, the only solution to this conflict is for it to end.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?


Of coarse they are universal rights.  They apply to both Israeli's and Palestinian's, equally.  That is why the Pals deserve their state too.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not duck the question.  I merely added to what has already been presented to you.  I am trying not to repeat myself.

Land acquisitions using BOTH the "Declarative Theory" [related to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)] and the "Constitutive Theory."

•  *Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster
•  Posting #22:  What Confers the Right to a National Sovereignty -- RoccoR
*
The Posting #22 _(supra)_ sets out the generalized points.  It must be understood that the Palestinians just saying they are a Sovereign State, or the Palestinians claiming some ambiguous reference to a Treaty that is non-specific or unsupported by the principle Parties to the agreement, is insufficient to declare sovereignty.  Further more, the idea of a "defined territory" is not merely a map reference.  The territory is unequivocally defined by the unchallenged Palestinian authority over some territory; without regard to what constitutes its boundaries.

For the Palestinians to claim "Sovereignty," they must have exclusive control over some territory which has realistic and recognizable limits by any outside observer.

The Palestinians themselves, claim that they do not have "exclusive control" over their territory; however, Israel does have "exclusive control over the territory it claims under their sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

It does not require a "document."  That is a concept that you suggest as a requirement to sovereignty.  However, event the Montevideo Convention does not require a document.  It doesn't require a Map or a Treaty.

•   Article 1:  The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
Having said that, Israel has some Boundary Documentation (much more than the Palestinians) that define the permanent international territorial boundary as far as where the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited (Article 3),  as well as, where the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel (Article 2) is considered.  There is an existing international boundary, with Lebanon, that is not in doubt _(Joint General Assembly and Security Council Document A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000)_ and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place.  And the Golan Heights is annex territory _(exclusive control)_.

Whether or not the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) wish to recognize or ignore the physical reality of the actual international demarcations --- is irrelevant.  The HoAP did not have control over these territories before they declared independence, and they do not have exclusive control over any of the areas except Area "A" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over which HAMAS claims control.

*(QUESTION)*

One might ask, if the HoAP has any equivalent documentation that "specifically" discusses the demarcations with Israel; or whether the Palestinian have Border Control barriers and points are equivalent to Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 27, 2015)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Response here to stay on topic.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | Page 18 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I did not duck the question.  I merely added to what has already been presented to you.  I am trying not to repeat myself.
> 
> ...


• Article 1: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
*b ) a defined territory;*
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
What was Israel's defined territory in 1948? My sense is that it did not define its territory because it did not have any. To this day Israel is politically recognized on territory defined by the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. This suggests that Israel has still not legally acquired any land. This puts Israel in the position of occupying power inside Palestine.

My question is when did Israel legally acquire any land and what are its defined borders?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...




WOW you really might read up on modern archeology before making such claims. There was no ancient exodus from Egypt, There's not a shred of physical evidence to support the story and there was no conquest of the Canaan Valley, again not a shred of physical evidence exists to support that narrative either. Instead it looks far more likely that the Hyksos throughout the Bronze Age lived as a primitive tribe on the outskirts of the Egyptian areas of influence, and when the Egyptians withdrew from the area the Hyksos gradually wandered into the decaying Egyptian farmlands. There's even a series of Egyptian outposts along the Nile valley which are designed to keep these ancients OUT of Egypt during a period of prolonged drought. 

You might seriously do a little reading on what modern science says about this history. 

Your next assertion is I regret indicative of desperation. The claim is an outright lie. If you could point out where I claimed the Jewish race is "pure" ? Because we both know I never said that. No, you said that in an effort to derail the conversation and take it in directions it was never intended to go with these kind of claims of false prerogatives. We both know I never said that, so really, lets not descend into false insinuations and outright lies rather than discuss these important issues. 

Nor am I a zionist. Although I don't take issue with there basic goals. The Judaic people do deserve a slice of their native lands. Thats not really the question. The issue seems to be if the Arabs can ever be satisfied with the ~83% of Judea they ended up with or the 99.9% of Northern Africa. Seems like the Judaic people are having to fight tooth and nail for scraps again and you are still complaining about even that small portion. 

Lastly more accusation and outright falsehoods. You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists. Once again you only embarrass yourself with all the false bravado. I am simply sticking up for native rights. Native peoples around the world are watching carefully how the Arabs are responding to a native tribes effort to return to some small scrap of its native homeland. And we are not impressed with the cruelty and brutality of the continued terrorist acts against our native brothers. Just because you might have lost your heritage, doesn't mean we have to lose ours. 

Cheers ;--)


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The Israeli people are guilty of surviving in the face of millions of Arabs rabid for the destruction of the only Jewish state. Nothing more.
> ...



Again you are taken in with the false narrative of an occupation. How can the Judaic people be occupying a land that was legally set aside for them to build a national Jewish homeland ?

This area like many others was set aside and administered externally until such time as the Judaic people ( in this particular case ) could establish a viable and lasting state. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Its not an occupation, its nation building. Exactly as intended. All the spin later and some people forget the actual history.

I also have no dog in this fight. However its interesting for me from a historical point of view because as a student of history I can more clearly see the spin being placed on the past such that it distorts all rational of the time which created these protectorates in the first place.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Are these UNIVERSAL RIGHTS or do they apply only to some peoples?
> ...



Again what happens in your country to universal rights when a crime is committed ? Does the criminal continue to enjoy freedom of movement ? freedom to purchase weapons ? Is the criminal not restricted in some way ?

Universal rights are for upstanding honest law-abiding citizens. Break those laws or find yourself in court for dishonest business practices and you will find yourself with reduced freedoms and under restrictions, just as the palestinians have.

What happens if an act of war is committed ? does the waring faction still enjoy the rights of whatever country they might reside in ? 

The simple truth is that the restrictions the palestinians find themselves under have been most deserved and proven themselves an effective deterrent. just look at the weapons being used in this latest round. Knives and clunkers rather than guns and bombs. Very effective indeed and thankfully so. I can imagine now that there might be driving restrictions placed on palestinians within age groups most likely to commit a terrorist act. I can also imagine new restrictions on knives being sold in the Arab occupied areas.

The moral outrage lies squarely at the feet of the terrorists, not the Israeli's


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Rocco #265

Well done. One of the issues I think in establishing peaceful relations with the palestinians has been a lack of leadership. There is no authority that governs them. its always been one despot after another stealing the aid money and setting him/herself up as a leader when the palestinians as a whole refuse to be led at all. Other than maybe through the most brutal force as can be seen in the Hamas controlled areas. Its one of the most difficult aspects of the conflict to deal with since there is simply no viable peace partner in authority over them.

Not really interested in hurling insults but the palestinians are a mob not a civilization at this point. They have always been governed from afar but loosely and it was for a long long time a lawless land inhabited by people from all over North Africa. Now that some semblance of civilization and governance has returned the local Arab population is resisting not simply Judaic presence but law and order.

I've read some interesting work on the psychological influences behind the conflict, several dealing with the effect of enforcing the strictures of law and order on a formerly lawless community. Interesting stuff there if a tad off topic.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I found these qualifications to be most interesting 

Quote
a ) a permanent population;
*b ) a defined territory;*
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
End Quote 

This list goes a long way to show that the palestinians not only are not a separate state, but never have been. 

They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state. 

Under your own definition the palestinians are an itinerant population without any specific ethnic or political affiliation other then a common language. Arabic 

So how does further reducing Israeli land instead of Arabic land help these people ? It doesn't and anyone with any insight at all can clearly see it. What it does do is offer an excuse by the Arab states to further reduce the areas assigned to the Judaic people. 

Falling back to a line in the sand the Arabs never accepted is simply ludicrous. Is the USA gong to fall back to pre Mexican American war days ? Simply because the area is largely inhabited by Spanish speaking peoples ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


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


They do not have a permanent population as the Ottoman land records show mostly absentee land ownership. They do not enjoy a defined territory as there is no palestine today. They have no effective governance as anyone can see and lastly they have failed to enter into relations other states as can be seen at the UN where they do not enjoy consideration as a state.​
WOW, you need to read up.


----------



## Vigilante (Dec 27, 2015)

It's ALL THE SAME, supposed Palestinians are simply Islamic...and they do the same shit where ever they are ALLOLWED in!


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I am actually extensively read on this topic, however if you have any new information to offer I'd be happy to give it a go. 

PS your link doesn't work


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, now you are faking it.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

See Posting #265

You ask for the "when" and the "what."

The WHEN:  Israel acquired it's original sovereignty in the 1948---1949 War of Independence.  Since that time, the boundaries with Lebanon is described (accepted by Lebanon in 2000).
The Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994 as stated.
The Annexation announced of the 1981 Golan Heights Law.

THE WHAT:  The borders are those that Israel Defense.  The boundaries are an actual physical  reality.  The description of the current borders are contained documents as I have provided.

THE ARAB PALESTINIANS and the STATE OF PALESTINE w/o BORDERS

The Arab Palestinians have no defined borders over which they have effective control.  The boundaries for the Mandate, as boundaries for the Mandate, were rendered historical in nature.  The Boundaries for the territory to which the mandate applied, are no longer applicable since the Mandate was terminated.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed.


Resisting the belligerent occupation of a foreign force, is not illegal.  Maintaining a belligerent occupation for almost 50 years and forcing an entire population of people to live under martial law, is illegal.  It's also inhuman and immoral. 

 That is why Israel has no choice but to go back to the '67 borders.  Check that.......let me re-phrase my statement.

Israel has no choice but to end the occupation; going back to the '67 borders, will be a result of that.




Boston1 said:


> Murder and terrorism are certainly illegal acts.


So is shooting at people fishing.



So is placing knives next to the bodies of a Palestinian you just shot in cold blood.






Boston1 said:


> Now if you want to consider it a war...


But its not a war.  It's an occupation.  A war denotes opposing armies going at each other.  We don't have that here.  What we have is on one side, the 4th most militarized country on the planet and on the other, an entire population of people under occupation that is not even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves.




Boston1 said:


> ... then I think Israel is being damn lenient.


Is administrative detention lenient?

Is it lenient to bulldoze the home of a family in the middle of the night without giving any notice?

Is it lenient bombing hospitals or targeting first responders?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, now you are faking it.
> 
> ...


The WHEN: Israel acquired it's original sovereignty in the 1948---1949 War of Independence. Since that time, the boundaries with Lebanon is described (accepted by Lebanon in 2000).
The Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994 as stated.
The Annexation announced of the 1981 Golan Heights Law.​
You are still ducking the question as to the acquisition of territory.

BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> You seem to be under the false impression I am both in Israel and of the ultra nationalists.


This is definitely off topic, but I'm compelled to say it...

...I'm a Laker fan and completely detest anything out of Beantown.

_Now back to the thread..._

It doesn't matter where you are, you have the same mindset the Nazis had going into Poland.  That is why you will be going back to the '67 borders.  The world community will not let Israel keep land it seized in a war.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Again what happens in your country to universal rights when a crime is committed ? Does the criminal continue to enjoy freedom of movement ? freedom to purchase weapons ? Is the criminal not restricted in some way ?


That's after they've been convicted through due process of law.

Israel is restricting an entire population of people who've committed no crime.




Boston1 said:


> Universal rights are for upstanding honest law-abiding citizens. Break those laws or find yourself in court for dishonest business practices and you will find yourself with reduced freedoms and under restrictions, just as the palestinians have.


The overwhelming majority of Palestinian's have not broken any laws.

Do you think its okay to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit?




Boston1 said:


> What happens if an act of war is committed ? does the waring faction still enjoy the rights of whatever country they might reside in ?


I wouldn't ask that question in light of the fact Israel commits acts of war on a weekly basis with immunity.




Boston1 said:


> The simple truth is that the restrictions the palestinians find themselves under have been most deserved and proven themselves an effective deterrent. just look at the weapons being used in this latest round. Knives and clunkers rather than guns and bombs. Very effective indeed and thankfully so. I can imagine now that there might be driving restrictions placed on palestinians within age groups most likely to commit a terrorist act. I can also imagine new restrictions on knives being sold in the Arab occupied areas.


You mean occupied Arab areas.




Boston1 said:


> The moral outrage lies squarely at the feet of the terrorists, not the Israeli's


Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's are.

There is no possible way to have a two state solution with people that think like you.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > My personal take on palestinian rights of self determination are similar to my take on the rights of anyones self determination. Those rights are given up once illegal acts are committed.
> ...




There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind. 

So given that Israel is establishing a national Jewish homeland EXACTLY where internationally agreed how is the term occupation applicable ? It isn't. Its just more spin on the part of the palestinian PR machine. 

We might as well face the truth here. When Jordan occupied the area previous to 67 and gave the Arabs living there citizenship, there was no cry of statehood for some separate little area. There was no complaining about palestine being renamed Jordan. There was no violence against Jordan for occupying so called palestinian land. THE ONLY REASON for the present nonsense about an occupation is ENTIRELY based on prejudice and bigotry. The Arabs simply refuse to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors and can't stomach a cooperative governance. Its racism all the way. 

These claims of occupation are nothing more than another PR ploy to destabilize the security and safety of the only Jewish nation. 

There is no chance that Israel with withdraw to some mythical green line. The Arab populations within that area are either going to have to adapt to a peaceful coexistence or be deported. For now restrictions are in place to reduce the terrorist acts and limit the death tolls. However eventually deportations will have to be, and will be stepped up if the present trend continues. 

The worlds opinion is shifting back towards the Israeli side with every violent act the palestinians commit.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.



The myth that there is such a thing as "1967 borders" and an "occupation" has been adopted wholesale by the global community despite every single legal instrument for the past 80 years clearly say two things:  1. the borders between Israel and another future independent Arab State are to be determined by negotiation and  2.  the 1949 Armistice Lines in no way prejudice or predict or delineate the outcome of said negotiations.  

That the vast majority of the international community have adopted this blatantly false narrative is shocking and ridiculous.  

Jordan has no claim to sovereignty on the land between its border with Israel and the Armistice Lines.  As has been pointed out, one does not get to keep land gained in a war of aggression, thus Jordan can not claim that land outright.  And since a nation can not benefit from an aggressive war, the defender has a better claim to the territory than the aggressor.  In 1948 and in 1967 there were no other sovereigns to choose from.  There was Israel and there was Jordan.  So that particular slice of land is either Israel's, in which case there is no occupation and no land gained in a war, OR there is a sovereignty vacuum in that particular slice of land, in which case the sovereign who has effective control over the territory and who defended against an aggressor has the better claim to sovereignty.  

The faulty narrative that some on this thread rely on is the idea that there is some unknown, vaguely understood Arab sovereignty over this territory.  Simply unsupportable in law.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you asked the questions.  I answered them directly.

The method of acquisition was described.  A combination of "Declarative" and “Constitutive.”  However, as a means of establishing a historical record, they come in handy.  Each record is dated.

There is no ducking the question.

I provided the documentation, although documentation IS NOT required using either method.  It is a matter of exclusive control.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are still ducking the question as to the acquisition of territory.
> 
> BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.


*(REFERENCE)*

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS


*ARTICLE 47 [ Link ] *

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2, para. 4; 
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.​
UN General Assembly resolution 2625 of 24 October 1970, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/25/2625.

Khartoum Resolution,
3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.​
*(COMMENT)*

A couple of point need to be made at this point:

The remaining individual parties to the conflict (Lebanon, Syria) and the non-state quasi-party (Arab Palestinians) have no real intention of breaking away from the Khartoum Resolution in which the Arab League pledged to:  "Within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country."

There are such things as Unilateral Exceptions to International Law.  It should be noted that the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility has never been adopted or considered for passage into law.  While there is a significant portion of Customary Law included in the draft codification, there are many points of contention that are neither Customary (practiced routine and consitantly), or considered advantageous to the rule of law.  Some of the major points are simply unenforceable.   Article 47, of the GCIV, is one of those points of contention.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.  Source:  Encyclopædia Britannica

According to the principle concerning the non-use of force in international relations, as elaborated in the United Nations General Assembly Res 2625 (XXV) (containing the _Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations_), ‘The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force’. In the same document, it is also emphasized that ‘No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’, corollary recognized by the International Court of Justice as reflecting customary international law, as well as the remaining text of Res 2625 (XXV) concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force.   The relevant parts of this Declaration have been recalled in the preamble of UN General Assembly Res 68/262, whereby, on 27 March 2014, the General Assembly has underscored that the referendum favorable to the accession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation ‘…having no legal validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status’ of these entities.  Source:  The Russian annexation of the Crimea: questions relating to the use of force
 by ANTONELLO TANCREDI on May 11, 2014 ​
Over the years, since the development of Humanitarian Law (IHL) began in the 19th Century, the net effect of the laws has been either to extend wars in their duration, or add to the complications of enforcement.  The IHL and common Charter stipulate that the use of force in relations between states, forced annexation, and colonization are improper.  But such laws are routinely exempt from notice when it involves segments of the international population that has extended it fear to coerce an exemption.  The Arab Palestinians believe that they are exempt from common law and permitted to carry-out any number of acts in pursuit of their agenda.

No major power is going to go to war with the Russian Federation over the illegal annexation of the Crimea; just as no major powers are going to go to war over the annexation of selected parts of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.  While in some circles, the Rule of Annexation is called customary --- it is not so customary that major exemptions are not made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.
> 
> So given that Israel is establishing a national Jewish homeland EXACTLY where internationally agreed how is the term occupation applicable ? It isn't. Its just more spin on the part of the palestinian PR machine.
> 
> ...


UNSC resolution 242 is telling you to get the fuck off land that isn't yours  and that's what you're going to fucking do!  You either do it voluntarily, or you will eventually be forced to.

There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israel's right to that fucking land, so cut the crap!  Your position is ludicrous!

There can be no peace plan with pricks that think like you.

But if I was President, I'd bring peace to that area.

First, I'd stop using our veto in the UNSC to protect Israel from being held accountable for the war crimes it commits.
Then, I'd stop all weapons shipments to Israel.
Then I'd freeze all Israeli assets in US banks.
Then I'd outlaw AIPAC.
And then, I'd submit a resolution to the UNSC telling Israel they got 90 days to get the fuck out of the OPT, or else that decision will no longer be there's to make.
On the 91st day, I'd send in the marines and drive the fucking Israeli's back to Israel.
Finally, I'd set up a demilitarized zone along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker that enters it from either side.
That's my peace plan, asshole!


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address. 

From your link 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

Quote 

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories.

End Quote 

So what we have is a question of how combatants are treated vs how civilians are treated within defeated population. In regards to refugees it is the administrators of the refugee camps or the host nations that are responsible for segregating combatants from noncombatants. In the case of the Israeli palestinian conflict it is the responsibility of UNWRA. However, and here's the kicker. UNWRA is very nearly entirely staffed by palestinians who have zero interest in NOT aiding the war effort. THE UN FAILED COMPLETELY AT EVERY TURN TO SEGREGATE COMBATANTS FROM NON COMBATANTS AMONG THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE POPULATION. 

This simple fact raises another interesting question. The legal justification of  refugee status for much of todays palestinain population. Given that descendants are also considered refugees then the question becomes further complicated. Are descendants of combatants illegally hiding within a refugee population because of the UNs failure to segregate combatant from noncombatants, considered refugees ? Legally the only answer can be a resounding NO. But try and get the UNs pro palestinian organization in charge of palestinian refugees, the UNWRA to cooperate in performing its legal obligations and you quickly find that there is no governing body responsible for overseeing this organizations adherence to the UNs own regulations; THAT IS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. 

Its an interesting element of the bias so evident at the UN. 

We have an obvious failure to segregate combatant from noncombatant elements of the palestinian refugee population throughout the ENTIRE conflict. 

We have a completely unique situation in which descendants of refugees are also considered refugees, but ONLY when considering palestinian refugees 

We have a definition of refugees which completely disregards any semblance of nationality, heritage, lineage, culture, history or indigenous ties to the land. 

The list goes on and on 

The point is that while you focus on the treatment of refugee populations in occupied lands. It remains a question of WHO QUALIFIES as a refugee. I'd contend that combatants do not qualify and may be detained in prisons until the end of hostilities. Ergo the restrictions placed on some so called refugee populations which might more accurately be described as combatants given that they both individually and collectively support terrorist acts, are perfectly legal under the geneva convention for the treatment of war prisoners


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "belligerent occupation" where do you get this stuff ? Jordan abandoned the area after a failed attempt to overrun Israel in 67. The area was left without governance and Israel stepped up to the plate realizing that the Jordan was a far more defensible border than the green line which was never accepted by the Arabs previously anyway. Had you spoken to Arabs in the area previous to 67 they'd be complaining about the same mythical occupation on the other side of the green line. I guess that whole occupation argument just moves with the political wind.
> ...



WOW, just wow. OK take a deep breath and try and collect yourself.

First of all, again, by descending into the childish personal attacks you are clearly expressing your frustration over being educated in the history of this conflict. That history simply doesn't support the revisionist narrative you are trying to run up the flagpole.

Lets review

We've seen how the UN is extremely bias against Israel. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?

We've seen how Jordan does encompass the internationally agreed boundaries of palestine. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?

We've see how Jordan is the Arab state envisioned by the authors of the palestinian mandate and how israel is the Jewish state.

We've seen how the area west of the Jordan IS NOT JORDANIAN.

Now lets investigate your latest claims concerning UNR 242

Give me a minute to go look put he relevant language of the resolution


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

The first thing I’d point out is that despite all the Arab blocks efforts to have Israel branded the aggressor in the 6 day war. All efforts failed. 

Given that I’d further note that UNSC resolutions are only internationally binding to the extent they are adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter. A chapter VII resolution according to the charter is an action with respect to threats to the peace, breached of the peace and acts of aggression. Resolution 242 does not fit into that category of a chapter VII resolution as no one considered Israel the aggressor in the 6 day war. 

Instead resolution 242 was adopted under category VI of the UN charter. Therefor Israel was assigned rights and obligation with respect to the territories its forces had captured in a defensive action

As I recall, ( and I'm looking for the specific language now ) the exact wording was that Israel should withdraw as soon as is practicable to maintain the peace. And that Israel is not required to return all or any land specifically to Jordan but the the surrounding states, of which palestine isn't one as palestine isn't a state. 

I'll keep looking through my notes, which are extensive. BRB


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Don't be silly,my "live in Israel" was to draw some truth out of you to where you live and what you actually think(I succeeded as usual,a lot of you Jews in the past try to hide where they are from,obviously I need to know what premise you start from)

Jews were not the original peoples of the Holy Land/Palestine

You are a mixture of different peoples,minute in number,today in Israel and the OCCUPIED TERRITORY,over 21% of Israel proper are Palestinians/Arab,this does not include the Arabs from the Golan Heights and other parts swallowed up after the six day war, who were offered Israeli Citizenship but totally refused that offer,of course the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli Citizens

Your assumption and use of subjective archaeology,is totally flawed,of course the Jews eliminated the Canaanites,by the way their Capital was SALEM......now Jew r salem,where you get your info from is a Joke,even Jewish Scholars realize and admit that the Canaanites were there before the Jews invaded.

Lets more forward to David the Userper,who murdered the King of the Jews at the time and eliminated them with the help of the Philistines,who he then eliminated (you see the pattern emerged completely)...........this one of the reasons the now King David was never allowed to consecrate the Temple(HIS BAD DEEDS),this was left to his son........I could pick you prose to pieces and expose your ignorance but I'm not into humiliating people.....I love Bravardo because unlike you I do have a Great Heritage unlike yours a broken violent one,which continues up to today........The Palestinians are a proud people and and although you have tried to divide them........but together will never be defeated,no matter how you try to eliminate them.......The world recognise this clearly,that's why more people support the Palestinians much more than the Israelis,as proven in the UN last year,.See you around,Viva Palestine and Viva Israel......Two State Solution.......unlike you and your mob that only drive forward to an Israel only..and therein lies the vast difference between you and I.........You are just unable to negotiate and compromise......which is a mental disorder,......You are not right at all in the way you think....thankfully there are some wonderful Jews who would/will(Mr Rabin for example and what did you do to him?????YES, YOU MURDERED YOUR OWN PRIME MINISTER)steven


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you asked the questions.  I answered them directly.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Rocco, Your post put the Palestinians on the legal and moral high ground.

Please respond with any part of that that you think would be a benefit to Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



All I can really say is you are delusional. 

Insisting I live somewhere your imagination leads you to believe I live is simply ludicrous


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Bingo

well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki 

Quote 
*
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter* deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3] Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain unimplemented.

End Quote 

So in the end resolution 242 IS NOT BINDING due to Israel's acts being defensive in nature 

Which is why Israel is NOT IN VIOLATION of international law for not withdrawing from the disputed territories YET or EVER since resolution 242 IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RECOMENDATION AND NOT A BINDING RESOLUTION 

You are batting zero my friend


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.
> 
> From your link
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> ...


Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLES PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Good post R, you inadvertently bring up one of the more archaic aspects of this issue that no palestinian sympathizer is ever willing to address.
> ...




Wow, did you forget to take a pill or something ?

This kind of post 

Quote 

Bullshit you were TERRORIST MURDING ASSHOLE PRIOR TO 1948 and haven't changed since..............always complaining how Israel are so hard done by................that's how Mad and Sick you are.

End Quote 

Is not only indicative of psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance but also of an obviously failed argument. 

Actually as far as I can see you failed to present any argument. 

I might recommend you review the data presented and reformulate your argument.


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


I never go back because I'm right of course, moreover why do you desire me to some how compensate for your Banality......sorry I stand unmoved by your request,as it would make me as Barmy as you,if I did..................but keep trying if you wish


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Bingo
> 
> well that was a pain in the ass to find in my notes so I just looked it up on the net and took the first hit which just happened to be Wiki
> 
> ...


Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



OK so you refuse to review the data presented and you insist on engaging in personal insults.

I believe this tactic is indicative of a psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance.

Need I explain the symptoms and behaviors typical of this condition ?

The simple reality is the argument has gone beyond your limited knowledge concerning this subject and you find yourself faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred beliefs. Rather than be willing to modify your beliefs to embrace the facts you instead are lashing out in anger and frustration.

I really can't help you in this regard and might suggest professional help. Meantime I am curious if you are able to allow the less emotionally involved among us to continue the conversation in peace ?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bingo
> ...



Again you are lashing out against all factual evidence. UNSC 242 is a non binding resolution SUGGESTING Israel withdraw from the DISPUTED territories. The area was LOST in an AGGRESSIVE ARAB ACT against the peaceful Israeli people. Ergo the UN was constrained to pass this resolution under article VI instead of the binding article VII. Capiche ?

No land was stolen, it is being administered by the israeli's until a peaceful solution can be established exactly in accord with the SUGGESTED resolution.

:--)


----------



## Shusha (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert



Perhaps you will finally be the one, after 30 pages, to tell us to whom those territories belong and which legal instrument lays this out and defines the boundaries of that territory.  But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert
> ...




I'm beginning to suspect that LIQs posts/opinions aren't based in any factual review of the history of events.


----------



## theliq (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


What a peaceful solution so that all the Palestinian Lands are kept by Israel....Yeah sure that is why you have and are building Jewish towns on the Palestinian Land......You are full of Shit.....but we are not so gullible


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



I'd be very curious as to what you believe states, in legal terms of course, that the disputed territories are palestinian.

From what I can derive from history the areas last legal designation was "to be set aside for the creation of a Jewish national homeland" Which was the last internationally agreed use of the land within a binding agreement. Unfortunately that agreement expired, but it is still the last internationally agreed use of the area in question.

Since then war has decided its fate. Which I'd prefer it hadn't but so be it. The Israeli's are now in control of the area and are under no legally binding agreement to forfeit that land to any non state entity. Particularly when that forfeiture might jeopardize the peace between neighboring states


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Arguing there is no occupation, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

It's also "OFF TOPIC" and a...

*Zone*

*Two*

*Violation!
*
This thread is about ending the occupation, not whether one exists.

It has been an occupation since 1967 and you fuckers are not going to change it now by calling it something else.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Arguing there is no occupation, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
> 
> It's also "OFF TOPIC" and a...
> 
> ...



LOL You are too funny.

Seriously ? You want to pull the off topic card on discussing occupation ? When the thread tittle clearly states occupation is the topic ?

The simple reality is the thread tittle involves a false premise and any discussion of the subject presented must include the factual basis for establishing that false premise. As of yet, no argument has been presented which has stood up to scrutiny that establishes Israel's administration of the disputed territories as an occupation. 

While I can understand why a palestinian sympathizer would want to insist that we accept the application of the term "occupation" to Israel's administering of the disputed territories I believe a very robust case can be made refuting such an application.

The facts expose the revisionist narrative for what it is. SPIN

Its very easy to establish that the UN is an extremely bias organization.

Its very easy to establish that the disputed territories are well within the areas designated within the last internationally agreed use of the land as being held in trust for the creation of a Jewish national homeland

it is factually accurate to suggest that Israel has a right to be there as a consequence of a defensive engagement

It is factually accurate to say that UNSC 242 is NOT A LEGALLY BINDING RESOLUTION BUT NOTHING MORE THAN A SUGGESTION. 

It is factually accurate to say that the disputed territories are not now nor have ever been a palestinian state.

Kinda puts an end to this whole occupation diatribe


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> WOW, just wow. OK take a deep breath and try and collect yourself.


Go fuck yourself!  You're an arrogant piece of shit!




Boston1 said:


> First of all, again, by descending into the childish personal attacks you are clearly expressing your frustration over being educated in the history of this conflict. That history simply doesn't support the revisionist narrative you are trying to run up the flagpole.


Your also a fuckin' liar!




Boston1 said:


> Lets review
> 
> We've seen how the UN is extremely bias against Israel. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?


There is no bias against Israel.

I just took one year at random (*2014*) and counted all the UNSC resolutions for that year.  Out of 65 resolutions, only 2 were about Israel.  And both of those, were shared with Syria.

So fuck your UN bias bullshit, it doesn't wash.




Boston1 said:


> We've seen how Jordan does encompass the internationally agreed boundaries of palestine. Need I repeat that lesson for you ?


Do I need to post the map of the partition plan again, for you, asshole?




Boston1 said:


> We've see how Jordan is the Arab state envisioned by the authors of the palestinian mandate and how israel is the Jewish state.


Wrong.  We've seen how the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Israel.




Boston1 said:


> We've seen how the area west of the Jordan IS NOT JORDANIAN.


And not Israel either.  West of the West Bank, is Israel.




Boston1 said:


> Now lets investigate your latest claims concerning UNR 242
> 
> Give me a minute to go look put he relevant language of the resolution


Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 27, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> LOL You are too funny.
> 
> Seriously ? You want to pull the off topic card on discussing occupation ? When the thread tittle clearly states occupation is the topic ?


Occupation is.  Saying there is no occupation, is not.  The thread is about ending the occupation, not whether there is one.  How can that not be any more clear?




Boston1 said:


> The simple reality is the thread tittle involves a false premise and any discussion of the subject presented must include the factual basis for establishing that false premise. As of yet, no argument has been presented which has stood up to scrutiny that establishes Israel's administration of the disputed territories as an occupation.


Let me know when you come back to planet earth. 




Boston1 said:


> While I can understand why a palestinian sympathizer would want to insist that we accept the application of the term "occupation" to Israel's administering of the disputed territories I believe a very robust case can be made refuting such an application.


I don't give a shit about either side.  I'm the most objective voice one could hear on this subject.




Boston1 said:


> The facts expose the revisionist narrative for what it is. SPIN


And psychologists call that "projection".




Boston1 said:


> Its very easy to establish that the UN is an extremely bias organization.


No it isn't.  I just proved it wasn't.




Boston1 said:


> Its very easy to establish that the disputed territories are well within the areas designated within the last internationally agreed use of the land as being held in trust for the creation of a Jewish national homeland


What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.




Boston1 said:


> it is factually accurate to suggest that Israel has a right to be there as a consequence of a defensive engagement


Listen fucker, states don't have rights, people do.




Boston1 said:


> It is factually accurate to say that UNSC 242 is NOT A LEGALLY BINDING RESOLUTION BUT NOTHING MORE THAN A SUGGESTION.


Now I know you're retarded.  All Security Counsel resolutions ARE binding.




Boston1 said:


> It is factually accurate to say that the disputed territories are not now nor have ever been a palestinian state.


That doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters, is its not Israel.




Boston1 said:


> Kinda puts an end to this whole occupation diatribe


Like I said, let me know when you're back on planet earth.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, just wow. OK take a deep breath and try and collect yourself.
> ...



WOW 

Again you might want to discuss this issue you seem to have with peacefully discussing this conflict with others with a qualified therapist. Mention cognitive dissonance and you might save some time. 

you are clearly lashing out against overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred view. A view that is obviously indefensible in the face of factual evidence.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL You are too funny.
> ...



I can't help but notice that you offer not one single reference to back your nonsense. 

Have you a single point within established literature that supports your view ? 

I have provided multiple references to support my position in this, its kinda hard not to notice that you on the other hand have provided nothing except a litany of profanity and false accusations. 

If you insist on discussing what you prefer to refer to as an occupation, then I believe the definition of occupation and the reality of Israel's administration of the disputed territories is on the table. Particularly when that subject undermines the false premise of the thread title.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Occupation is.  Saying there is no occupation, is not.  The thread is about ending the occupation, not whether there is one.  How can that not be any more clear?



Do you not understand that the OP is a trick question?  Its a trap.  Its a pit that you have fallen into and are now at the bottom of whilst screaming at the top of your lungs that there is no trap.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Occupation is.  Saying there is no occupation, is not.  The thread is about ending the occupation, not whether there is one.  How can that not be any more clear?
> ...



Bingo 

The revisionists hard at work.


----------



## theliq (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Be as CURIOUS as you like,the bottom line is,Israels behaviour has been shameful(check its true definition) to the Palestinians and  to most of us.....but still you persist with your defence of the indefencable................Go spew your Pro-Zionist Shit to someone else......because you are on "a hiding to nothing" with me,and the truthful on here.

Please God send me a Normal(not hateful) Jew to talk to...........because Boston ain't the real deal..just a Terrorist Zionist DRESSED IN SHEEPS CLOTHING..Amen


----------



## Jroc (Dec 28, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


The logic of an idiot "  "Zionist" Jews are terrorist. The Arabs are just misunderstood   Watch and learn boy


----------



## hadit (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > And they got their butts thoroughly kicked.  They're still ticked about it.
> ...


Which of the wars did the Arab nations win?


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



Many people when faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to their preferred beliefs will lash out in attempt to maintain what have now become demonstrably false beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately it would appear that you are one of those people. If you would like to discuss the issues civilly and peacefully that would be fine. But I will not engage in some childish war of insults, profanity and petty accusations.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

I know of some "legal exceptions" to the law that have yet to be litigated, BUT I am unclear as to which law in particular, you claim Israel is acting contrary to or forbidden by law, in the establishment of its occupation.



theliq said:


> Not "Disputed Territories" BUT Stolen Territories.....get it right ........IT IS ILLEGAL OCCUPIED PALESITIAN LAND...you Covert


*(COMMENT)*

First, I believe that all the territory that Israel has  either "effective control" --- or --- "exclusive control" can be placed under dispute prior to Peace Negotiations or Claim Settlement Proceedings; especial with regard to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

There is an argument to be made under international law; as there was a point at which both territories were expressly or implicitly relinquished to Israeli sovereignty.  OR there was a point at which Israel was the only sovereignty to maintain control over the territory and claim.  _*Terra nullius




*_​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> I know of some "legal exceptions" to the law that have yet to be litigated, BUT I am unclear as to which law in particular, you claim Israel is acting contrary to or forbidden by law, in the establishment of its occupation.
> 
> ...



Exactly, the claim of stolen palestinian land is fictional at best. The simple truth is it was never palestinian land. A few other sticky points when considering the revisionist diatribe is that early Zionists were BUYING LAND not stealing it when the local Arabs lashed out in bigotry and prejudice starting a war, which they lost. Land won in a defensive war is not land stolen its land acquired in self defense that further strengthens ones defensive position. Regardless the area in question went from a caliphate of the Ottoman empire to British mandated administration. The mandate called for two states to be created out of the area, one Jewish and one Arab.

See 
Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights

The claim is demonstrably false, and while the mandate expired the ONE Arab nation was established known as Jordan, or Trans-Jordan at the time. With the Jewish nations borders being still determined because and only because of Arab complaints that 80+% of the original mandate wasn't enough; they wanted it all and made it clear they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish presence in the mandated area. 

Its really pretty simple. The entire situation boils down to prejudice and bigotry. Except the bigots lost and became terrorists segregated from society for the safety of all concerned. 

One would think they'd face up to their past transgressions and join the rest of the world in at least some semblance of peace. But instead we continue to see one terrorist act after another and the constant attempts to run the revisionist narrative up the flag pole. 

Pity really, Israel has become such a beautiful country and yet is forced to hold back the tide of this one small groups hatred in perpetuity


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Linking propaganda pieces doesn't make the European colonization of Palestine any less a European colonial project in which the native people are evicted by people from another continent. I don't understand how anyone would expect that a native people would passively accept colonization without resisting the colonizers.  It is a case of cognizant dissonance not recognizing the invasion of Palestine by Europeans for what it was.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Linking propaganda pieces doesn't make the European colonization of Palestine any less a European colonial project in which the native people are evicted by people from another continent. I don't understand how anyone would expect that a native people would passively accept colonization without resisting the colonizers.  It is a case of cognizant dissonance not recognizing the invasion of Palestine by Europeans for what it was.



Again the revisionist view is expressing an extremely distorted view. SOME of todays Israelis come from Europe. Many were expelled from Arab nations.

Only about 35% of Jews in Israel claim Europe as their country of origin
Something like 28% fled Arab countries.
See
Demographics of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again the claims made by standard revisionist diatribe are demonstrably false

I'm not sure if its helpful for our revisionists to be constantly forwarding false information but I don't see where its helpful. Any even rudimentary view of the basic data will generally refute most if not all of the revisionist claims. Things like stolen land, apartheid, European colonists and the like are demonstrably either outright lies or half truths at best.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim.  The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim.  The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.



Yikes, another half truth. 

The whole truth, of which you are leaving off quite a bit is that in the mid 1800 a massive pogrom to eliminate Jews from this area of the Ottoman empire was undertaken and Jews were either killed or forced to abandon their homes and flee. 

What do you suppose that does to the population in the time frame you specify ? 

Again your accusations are demonstrably false or half truths, Again even the slightest application of research will refute these insinuations that Jews had abandoned Judea of their own free will 

Quote 

Following the Damascus affair, Pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874).[16] There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[12] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[12]

In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. This is known as the Allahdad incident. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[17]

In Palestine there were riots and pogroms against Jews in 1920 and 1921. Tensions over the Western Wall in Jerusalem led to the 1929 Palestine riots,[18] whose main victims were the ancient Jewish community at Hebron which came to an end.

End Quote. 

So again your revisionist narrative is proven vastly inadequate in relaying anything of a factual nature.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim.  The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.


A rudimentary fact sidestepped by those with little knowledge of history is that the geographic area called "Palestine" was the subject of an earlier invasion by Moslem hordes which was a part of the Ottoman Empire built upon dead bodies as a result of Islamist war, rapine and colonization.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim.  The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.
> ...



Appreciate the info however your specific accusation was that in the 1850s palestine was 99% Arab. But you forgot to mention that in the earlier part of that century were countless pogroms to drive out or kill the Judaic population. 

Its kinda important if you are going to insinuate that the Judaic people had abandoned the area to mention that they were actually victims of vicious pogroms designed specifically to reduce or eliminate them completely from this area for the previous 30 or 40 years.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



 A revisionist view made up of half truths in no more acceptable than on made up of purely lies


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Many people when faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to their preferred beliefs will lash out in attempt to maintain what have now become demonstrably false beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Unfortunately it would appear that you are one of those people. If you would like to discuss the issues civilly and peacefully that would be fine. But I will not engage in some childish war of insults, profanity and petty accusations.


There is nothing more profane than you blaming the Pals for 100% of the problem.  You never say what Israel has done wrong.  It's always "THEM".


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



The Muslim "hordes" brought a few Jews to Palestine, which had been either a Pagan or Christian land (no Jews) for several centuries as the inhabitants had converted to the State religions of Rome. The presence of any Jews in Palestine was thanks to the Muslims.

What pogroms prior to 1850?


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> WOW
> 
> Again you might want to discuss this issue you seem to have with peacefully discussing this conflict with others with a qualified therapist. Mention cognitive dissonance and you might save some time.
> 
> you are clearly lashing out against overwhelming evidence contrary to your preferred view. A view that is obviously indefensible in the face of factual evidence.


Dude, shove that condescending attitude up your ass!

Factual evidence is that land was seized in a war.  Factual evidence is it is against the law to hold onto land seized in a war.  Factual evidence is there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with you.

Add them all up and the evidence is overwhelming_..........against you!_


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Many people when faced with overwhelming evidence contrary to their preferred beliefs will lash out in attempt to maintain what have now become demonstrably false beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.
> ...



Actually you are so busy with the revisionist diatribe I have had a chance to do much but try and set the record straight. 

But feel free to start a thread on the subject.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Your question was answered in another thread. Lets end the cross posting


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > WOW
> ...



If you would like to engage in a peaceful productive conversation thats cool but if you insist on the childish language and profanity, you're not gong to get very far/ 

In the mean time feel free to document exactly what makes you think Israel is legally obligated to return land that was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland to a non state entity.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> I can't help but notice that you offer not one single reference to back your nonsense.
> 
> Have you a single point within established literature that supports your view ?
> 
> ...


I provided citations in posts 304 and 227; you wouldn't even address them.


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> If you would like to engage in a peaceful productive conversation thats cool but if you insist on the childish language and profanity, you're not gong to get very far/
> 
> In the mean time feel free to document exactly what makes you think Israel is legally obligated to return land that was intended for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland to a non state entity.


I'm not addressing anymore of your points until you start addressing mine.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you would like to engage in a peaceful productive conversation thats cool but if you insist on the childish language and profanity, you're not gong to get very far/
> ...



Seems indicative of a certain maturity level I've come to expect from the revisionist writers. 

Seems to me I've done nothing but address other peoples posts around here, if I missed a few, oops.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I doubt that you could find anyone that (so-called: "evicted") 1946 through 1949.  If you were one day old in 1949, you would have to be at least 66 years old.  Even today, the life expectancy for an Arab Palestinians, (assuming he or she is not a terrorist or jihadist) is 65 to 71 years of age.  But for someone born in 1948 or earlier, the number was much less.  So, an optimistic estimate for the number of those that might be still living that were evicted is 60K people _(true refugees)_.
*Age structure for West Bank:*
0–14 years: 33.7% (male 472,476/female 448,078)
15–24 years: 21.7% (male 303,578/female 289,119)
25–54 years: 36.4% (male 511,443/female 483,276)
55–64 years: 3.8% (male 59,762/female 59,372)
65 years and over: 3.8% (male 43,629/female 60,315) (2014 est.)​*Age structure for Gaza Strip:*
_0–14 years:_ 44.7% (male 343,988/female 325,856)
_15–64 years:_ 52.7% (male 403,855/female 386,681)
_65 years and over:_ 2.7% (male 16,196/female 23,626) (2008




montelatici said:


> Linking propaganda pieces doesn't make the European colonization of Palestine any less a European colonial project in which the native people are evicted by people from another continent. I don't understand how anyone would expect that a native people would passively accept colonization without resisting the colonizers.  It is a case of cognizant dissonance not recognizing the invasion of Palestine by Europeans for what it was.


*(COMMENT)*

Virtually NONE of the modern day leader of HAMAS (Khaled Mashal) was born May 28, 1956 (Age 60) · Ramallah, Palestinian Territory, Occupied.  He was never evicted during the War of Independence.

Of the *the Palestinian Shuhada (Martyrs) of Occupation* -- killed between 12 July and 21 August, as listed on the Official HAMAS Site, only 13 people (or 0.8%09less than 1%), of the "*1596 names* have been confirmed – the actual death is at least at 2137" _(actual deaths claimed)_ were actually old enough to have been part of this "eviction for which you speak.

Hasan Hussein Younis, 75, Rafah | Killed during Israel’s massacre on Gaza | Aug 21, 2014
Mariam Khalil Ruba, 70, Jabalia | 29 Jul 2014
Soheila al-‘Ejel, 70, Gaza City. | 29 Jul 2014
Turkeyya Dheir, 80, Rafah. | 29 Jul 2014
Hussein Hasan Abu an-Naja, 65, Khan Younis. | 29 Jul 2014
Salim Salaam Abu ath-Thoum, 87, Rafah. | 26 Jul 2014
Hasan Abu Hayyin, 70, Shujaeyya, Gaza. | 23 Jul 2014
Fatima Hasan Azzam, 70, Gaza. | 22 Jul 2014
Hakima Nafe’ Abu ‘Adwan, 75, Rafah. | 22 Jul 2014
Najah Nafe’ Abu ‘Adwan, 85 Rafah. | 22 Jul 2014
Mohammad Abdul-Rahman Hassouna, 67, Rafah. | 17 Jul 2014
Zeinab Mohammad Sa’id al-‘Abadla, 71, Khan Younis. | 17 Jul 2014
Sobhi Abdul-hamid Mousa, 77, Khan Younis. | 15 Jul 2014​The point here is that the constant whining about "eviction" comes from a very vocal, but non-member, of the actual refugee group (the 700,000 claimed).  The 99% of the Palestinians killed during that period of the conflict were not even valid claimants.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

I'm not sure which particular points you really want to address.



Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but notice that you offer not one single reference to back your nonsense.
> ...



*(COMMENT)*





I thought you might want to look at it from a different perspective.

*UN Passed 20 Resolutions Against Israel in 2014, Only 
4 Against Other Nations*
www.jspacenews.com › Blog
UN Passed 20 Resolutions Against Israel in 2014, ... The year in review reveals some disturbing facts out of the United Nations. In 2014, ... Take Action Now. ...​
Now in addition to this, the whiners of Turkey and the Persistent Palestinian Whiners have attempted to have the to re-open a dead case.[/indent]

 An International Criminal Court (ICC) Panel of three Judges have ordered the court’s prosecutor to reconsider the decision not to investigate Israel for war crimes over the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident. 
In a 2-1 ruling, the judges granted a request by the Comoros Islands to reconsider the case after the discovery of “material errors in the prosecutor’s assessment” of the matter.  The Judges find the Prosecutors Office in "material error."  This is an open display of the assumption and presumption of guilt.   This is a blatant disregard for the customary law applicable to Naval Blockades just to inflict intentional harm on Israel to cover --- malfeasance on the part of the court.

The 2014 The Palestinians openly commit acts of War, intentionally inciting a War, so that they can then file an ICC complaint.  Then, in accepting the complaint, the Palestinians try to limit the inquiry to actions taken after the kidnap and murder of three minors by pro-Palestinian Extremist.   The complaint circles around:

•  crime of apartheid, 
•  attacks against civilians, 
•  excessive loss of human life and 
•  crime of colonization. ​I don't think there is any question as to the biased media and international legal attempt to attack the State of Israel and lend material support to organizations and government that have fired rocket into another sovereignty, that have openly applauded the attempt to assassinate a head of state, the Munich Massacre of 1972, numerous hijacking, suicide bombings, the kidnap and murder of innocents, the incitement to commit acts of violence and jihadist operations against a sovereign nations as well as other.  

No, I don't think that a self-proclaimed Jihadist organization has any justification for any of its actions and should not be permitted to created another Islamic State that supports terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

A/RES/37/43
                                                    3 December 1982

              Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
              to self-determination and of the speedy granting of
              independence to colonial countries and peoples for the
              effective guarantee and observance of human rights

2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


The Jewish National Home was not a transfer of land to Jews.

You are basing your post on false premise.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> A/RES/37/43
> 3 December 1982
> 
> Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
> ...


I was hoping you could comment on the above in connection with apartheid so common in Islamist majority nations.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure which particular points you really want to address.
> 
> ...


...attack the State of Israel and lend material support to organizations and government that have fired rocket into another sovereignty,...​
The Palestinians, and others, consider that to be occupied Palestinian territory.

That is an issue that must be resolved before we can start pointing fingers.


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Nonsense 

the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: 

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home.”

This is clearly an acceptance of the Judaic people creating a country within the British mandated area. 

Wrong again my friend


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


My post is correct.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable* *and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Are these actual "laws?"



montelatici said:


> A/RES/37/43
> 3 December 1982
> 
> Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

When a Resolutions passes into law, there are a couple of things in the resolution that go along with it.

Example of an General Assembly Resolution that has become law:

* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*​
*Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966*
*entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49 *​

Notice that General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 --- gives an entry into force date (23 March 1976).  It also gives the Article of intent.
_*Article 49*_
1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.​
Absent the Article of intent and activation --- AND date of the Covenant goes into force, IT IS NOT A LAW.  Not being transformed into law, it has no force.  The example took 10 years for ratification and accession. 

Your 33 year old General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 has NO Article if Intent and Activation as to how and when it  becomes Law, nor has it been ratified by the pre-requisite 35 member.

*(THOUGHT)*

I've notice that a vast number of pro-Palestinians rely on these Resolutions that are expressions of the opinion --- are mistaken for legal requirements.  But please don't mistake them for that.  They are not binding as a matter of routine; in fact very few are brought into law and become binding.

An example of this is the International Bill of Rights (IBR).  The IBR is made up of three documents:  i)  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  While the CESCR and the CCPR are Covenant that have been brought into force, the UDHR has not.  There are things in the UDHR that many countries believe are purely matters of national sovereignty and should not be address by International Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Your post was demonstrably incorrect

Quote 

Nonsense 

the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: 

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home.”

This is clearly an acceptance of the Judaic people creating a country within the British mandated area. 

Wrong again my friend

End Quote


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.
> 
> "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.
> 
> ...



As usual your position has been exposed as the revisionist nonsense it is 

Thanks to Rocco 

If I could find the thanks button on this thing ?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post.  Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, you are right.  There is no real estate document that transfers real property from one sovereignty to another in most cases; unless one sovereignty makes an agreesment to another party.  Alaska was purchase from the Russian, and of course there was the Louisiana Purchase from France.



P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The territory was subject to the Declaration of Independence; under the Declarative Theory of Acquisition and the “Constitutive.”   These concepts are generally ignored because they invalid objection by the Pro-Palestinian Movement.

See Posting 283
See Posting 265

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post.  Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.



Its pretty easy to see that you have no intention of actually addressing a single rebuttal but instead insist on simply repeating the same old revisionist nonsense. 

No worries, makes it easier to expose the fraud


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Are these actual "laws?"
> 
> ...



What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means.  Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The only revisionist nonsense is the nonsense you and Rocco post.  Your Hasbara propaganda was debunked through the use of source documentation from UN, governmental and academic archives long ago.
> ...



The fraud is your repeating the Hasbara propaganda.  I have rebutted every position you have taken with source documentation.  You lost. Quit digging.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Indeed, you are correct.



montelatici said:


> As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.
> 
> "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It was never the 1922 intention of the Allied Powers, the Council of the League of Nations, or the Mandatory (HM's Government), that entirety of the Mandate for Palestine was to become a Jewish anything (national Home to a Nation).   And indeed, following this statement, in 1923, the carve-out of the Mandate to the East of the Jordan River and to the frontier if Mesopotamia, was to be established as Arab Trans-Jordan; 77% of the Mandate was declared as Arab under the quasi-Autonomy of the Emir.

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
THE UNITED NATIONS
A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947​
91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

“The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”

The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument.  Trans-Jordan was assigned  to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

You are a bit mistaken.



montelatici said:


> What is extraordinary, is that it appears you really believe that colonized or people under belligerent do not have the right, under international law, to resist colonization or occupation through any means.  Does that mean that all the anti-colonial movements were illegal, including the U.S. war of independence?


*(COMMENT)*

"We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." – _Benjamin Franklin_.​
Most definitely the American War of Independence was seen as a very direct act of treason against crown and king.

*THE TRAITORS*
"... we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."​ALL 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, where keenly aware that the punishment for this treason was death.  No question about it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



Yikes, so many misrepresentations its hard to even know where to start

A) there was no colonization, land was purchased legally right up until the Arabs attacked.
B) The Israeli's have never been the belligerents, every war was started by the Arabs with only the palestinians continuing that war today.
C) International law demands the segregation of combatants from non combatants within refugee populations. The UN has failed to do this and instead is offering aid to a combatant force within the UN run refugee camps.
D) Palestinians terorism is not resistance
E) The US war of independence bears no resemblance to the Israeli palestinian conflict


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> Seems indicative of a certain maturity level I've come to expect from the revisionist writers.


Listen asshole, if you want a respectful conversation, then you better drop that condescending attitude.




Boston1 said:


> Seems to me I've done nothing but address other peoples posts around here, if I missed a few, oops.


No, you haven't addressed my points and you know you haven't.  It ain't no "oops".

You said the UN was "biased" and I proved it wasn't in post #304.

You said Israel was "lenient" and I proved it wasn't in post #227.

This has happened several times and all I get from you is "crickets".


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Read it again.



montelatici said:


> Continuing to justify European colonization of Palestine, does not help your argument.  Trans-Jordan was assigned  to the Bedouins (Hashemites) as a reward for their support of the British, not the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) who were no more Bedouin than the Germans.


*(COMMENT)*

When talking about Partition and Statehood, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory speak in terms of a Jewish State and an Arab State.  But not a Palestinian State.  That is true from the start (1916) to the Partition Plan of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



A) Of course there was colonization.  The Zionists themselves admitted as much.
B) Of course the colonizers are belligerents. The colonizers, by definition and coming from another continent to take land from the native inhabitants, are the invaders.
C) Of course the people being colonized have the right to resist colonization by any means.
D) Resisting occupation and/or colonization is not terrorism, by definition.
E) The American colonists did have less of a right to resist Britain as they were themselves colonists, I can agree with you that the native people of Palestine have more of a right to resist European colonization than the Americans, themselves  colonists, had.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Read it again.
> 
> ...



There was no talk of a Jewish state until 1947.  In fact, the British denied there was any intention of establishing a Jewish state.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

Yes, you guys tend to jump and make assumptions.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What it says is "wholly Jewish Palestine;"  NOT a Jewish State, as in partition.

Don't rewrite what it says.

Also remember that we are talking about a statement in policy made in 1922.  This does not reflect any changes in policy or changes in intent that may occur some 20 years later in the 1940's.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> I know of some "legal exceptions" to the law that have yet to be litigated, BUT I am unclear as to which law in particular, you claim Israel is acting contrary to or forbidden by law, in the establishment of its occupation.
> 
> ...


Sorry Rocco,but Israel have NO intention of giving ANY LAND back,as is clearly seen by the ferocious building for Jews on Palestinian land moreover when Peace was close.....what did you do,Murder Mr Rabin your Prime Minister....you need say NO MORE......steve,Rocco I'd like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year


----------



## theliq (Dec 28, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The most rudimentary fact is that before the European invasion starting in the mid 18oos, 99% of the people in Palestine were either Christian or Muslim.  The Zionists were European colonists, they described themselves as such.
> ...


But not by Palestinians unless you mean their retribution after the squalid illegal Jewish immigrants killing and murders of the Palestinians done previously.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Yes, you guys tend to jump and make assumptions.
> 
> ...



What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947. 

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


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



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



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*





*Lake Success*
*New York*
*1947*



*"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."*

nor do you maniacal partisans read what the British said about Jew terrorism:

"Zionism, however, does not content itself with mere propaganda in favour of the fulfilment of its expansionist projects at the expense of the Arab countries. *Its plan involves recourse to terrorism, both in Palestine and in other countries. It is known that a secret army has been formed with a view to creating an atmosphere of tension and unrest by making attempts on the lives of representatives of the governing authority and by destroying public buildings . . . This aggressive attitude, resulting from the mandatory Power's weakness in dealing with them, will not fail to give rise in turn to the creation of similar organizations by the Arabs. *The responsibility for the disturbances which might result therefrom throughout the Middle East will rest solely with the Zionist organizations, as having been the first to use these violent tactics." It was declared at the same meeting that "against a State established by violence, the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence".135/"

"Zionism, however, does not content itself with mere propaganda in favour of the fulfilment of its expansionist projects at the expense of the Arab countries. Its plan involves recourse to terrorism, both in Palestine and in other countries. It is known that a secret army has been formed with a view to creating an atmosphere of tension and unrest by making attempts on the lives of representatives of the governing authority and by destroying public buildings . . . This aggressive attitude, resulting from the mandatory Power's weakness in dealing with them, will not fail to give rise in turn to the creation of similar organizations by the Arabs. The responsibility for the disturbances which might result therefrom throughout the Middle East will rest solely with the Zionist organizations, as having been the first to use these violent tactics." It was declared at the same meeting that "against a State established by violence, the Arab States will be obliged to use violence; that is a legitimate right of self-defence".135/


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Indeed, you are correct.
> 
> ...


What you leave out is that the Mandate had no authority over the disposition of land. The UN did not have that authority either.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

Steven and all the best for you and yours.



theliq said:


> Sorry Rocco,but Israel have NO intention of giving ANY LAND back,as is clearly seen by the ferocious building for Jews on Palestinian land moreover when Peace was close.....what did you do,Murder Mr Rabin your Prime Minister....you need say NO MORE......steve,Rocco I'd like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year


*(OBSERVATION)*

"What's true is this: On June 18-19, 1967, a week after the war, Israel's cabinet met to formulate a stance on the occupied territories. The U.N. General Assembly was about to convene. Israeli leaders feared U.S. pressure to withdraw immediately, and needed to offer an alternative. After intense debate, the cabinet approved a secret message to Washington: Israel was prepared to reach peace treaties with Egypt and Syria "on the basis of the international border and Israel's security needs." Until such treaties, it would stay put. Glaringly, the decision said nothing about the West Bank."

*(COMMENT)*

The offer did not specifically include the "West Bank" BUT "on the basis of the international border and Israel's security needs."  However, during the term of this offer, the Khartoum Conference deliberations resulted in the "3 No's."

Thus the No negotiation kicked the deal off the table.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, that was not all.



montelatici said:


> What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.
> 
> *"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."*


*(COMMENT)*

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:  

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter.  That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.  

154. This *decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947*. In the course of his speech he said:-


“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. *We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”*

*London,
July 1947*
As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem.  The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations.  What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

It is difficult for those involved to realize that the cards are stacked against them long term.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that was not all.
> 
> ...



It does not change what the British believed.  It is just your usual BS, Rocco.  Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

*"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."*


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What the British did was:  "*We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
*
If there is BS here, it is not me.  History shows that is exactly what happened.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 28, 2015)

You are the bullshitter Rocco, an ignorant one at that. What the British said as the Mandatory power:



*"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."*


----------



## Boston1 (Dec 28, 2015)

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...


----------



## theliq (Dec 29, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is
> 
> Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...
> 
> ...


CREEP/S ........ NEVER HEARD YOU MOANING IN 1948 ABOUT THE U.N..Huh the IRONY IS,that you use this Organization as an authority for your actual existence..then ignore and Slag them off,when they try to bring you to HEEL................No one is really bias about Israel,except in the minds of Zionist Terrorist Jews in Israel and elsewhere........... because they never comply to anything the UN or the US says......unless it suits them......anyway....Israel are a Poor Civic Citizen within the World Community.........Always crying Wolf or Anti-Semitism or other such CRAP........Israel are BIAS AGAINST EVERYONE WHEN IT SUITS THEM.........They are such Bores,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 29, 2015)

theliq, Boston1, et al,

Wow...  I have ofter heard pro-Palestinians speak out of turn, relative to their "right to use all means necessary'" without regard to the law.  They have often defended their right to attack unarmed civilians.  They have indeed perfected the art of attacking unarmed civilians since before the time of the Six Day War.



theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians have an extensive history and a pattern of unchallengeable criminal behavior.  Yet, not once have the Palestinians really faced international condemnation and criminal prosecution.  Not once have the Hostile Arab Palestinians made to make restitution for the crimes of terrorism they have committed; or the actions that have been established as Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

I find it very damn strange that the International Community, not once --- even after the 1972 Munich Massacre at the Olympics, challenged and held the Hostile Arab Palestinians of the accountable.  The International Community allowed the armed Palestinian _fedayeen_ to attempt the assassination of the Jordanian King, not once -- but twice in 1970.   Nor were the Hostile Arab Palestinians held accountable for:

Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing - 25 injured Double Suicide attack, carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Fatah. 
Jaffa Street bombing  First female suicide bomber in Al-Aqsa Intifada, Wafa Idris. Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Tayibe bombing Tayibe Hamas claimed responsibility.
Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing West Bank PFLP claimed responsibility.[
Maale Adumim - Jerusalem road bombing explosive that was detonated by the driver of the car he was checking. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Maccabim bombing Hamas claimed responsibility. 
*Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre* Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Ariel hotel lobby bombing PFLP claimed responsibility.
*Café Moment bombing* Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Egged bus 22 bombing Injured Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
King George Street bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
*Passover massacre* Suicide attack on Passover seder in Park Hotel.  Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 
Kiryat HaYovel supermarket bombing Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Allenby Street coffee shop bombing March 30, 2002 Tel Aviv 1 Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
Baqa al-Gharbiyah bombing  Booby-trapped vehicle that Palestinians tried to sneak into Israel. 
*Matza restaurant suicide bombing* Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Efrat Medical Center Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Jerusalem Roadblock bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
Yagur Junction bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
3rd Mahane Yehuda Market attack  Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
*Rishon LeZion bombing* Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Netanya Market bombing Hamas together with PFLP. 
Afula road bombing Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Rothschild Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Studio 49 Disco bombing The security guard opened fire on a Palestinian attempting to detonate a car bomb. 
Petah Tikva Mall bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
*Megiddo Junction bus bombing* Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
Herzliya shawarma restaurant bombing Hamas claimed responsibility. 
*Patt Junction Bus Bombing* Hamas claimed responsibility. 
French Hill Junction massacre Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. 
Immanuel bus attack Detonation of an explosive device and shooting. Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Neve Shaanan Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Hebrew University massacre  Bomber was from East Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Meron Junction Bus 361 attack Arab bomber with Israeli citizenship. Hamas claimed responsibility. 
1st Umm al-Fahm bombing The Palestinian exploded in a taxi killing himself and wounding an Israeli-Arab driver from Nazareth. 
2nd Umm al-Fahm bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
Allenby Street bus bombing Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Geha road bombing October 10, 2002 Bar-Ilan interchange, Geha road 1 Hamas claimed responsibility. 
*Karkur junction suicide bombing* Suicide bombers Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
Sonol gas station bombing Victims killed while trying to prevent the Palestinian from detonating the bomb. Hamas claimed responsibility. 
Kfar Saba shopping mall bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. 
*Kiryat Menachem bus bombing* Hamas claimed responsibility.​ 
Both the Permanent Court of Justice, International Court of Justice have never brought the Arab Palestinians to Justice.  Even recently, The ICJ denied Israel's right to self-defense saying: Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - Article 51 not relevant in the present case.  This material error in judgement, rests upon the Armistice Lines that the Palestinians were never a party to, to begin with and that the Armistice Line only remained in force until a peaceful settlement bThe Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was achieved [Article XII (2) of Armistice Agreement]  The ICC Court Judges have, under the color of authority, ordered the Prosecutor to re-examine the Mavi Marmara decision --- casting a serious spotlight on the impact of political of the Judges to remain unbiased; given that th Flotilla acted in a manner consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person; by first announcing they intended to run a posted blockade, and then attempting to run the blockade.  Similarly, the ICC allowed the Palestinians to file a series of 520 complaints (Frivolous ≈ 73%) for the period 1 August 2014 to 30 June 2015:

•  383 were manifestly outside the Court’s jurisdiction;  
•  36 were unrelated to current situations and warranted further analysis; 
•  68 were linked to a situation already under analysis; and 
•  33 were linked to an investigation or prosecution.​
There is no question in my mind that the ICJ and the ICC are under the pressure if Islamic Extremist and afraid if the court does nothing, these Islamic Extremist will initiate domestic disturbances in Europe.  For this and other reasons, neither court should have jurisdiction as they are contaminated.  Neither court attempts to demonstrate the slightest bit of integrity and is a demonstrated failure to observe standards or show due honesty.  They have shaken the foundation of credibility once held by the court.  This will create a crisis in which the single-sided prosecution of the Jewish State in the selective enforcement of the ICC, will  bring the relevance of the court into question.

The UNRWA appears to have had employees with very close (if not direct) connections with HAMAS.  Over 50% of the Gaza Population are receiving some sort of handout from the UNRWA.  That is kind of hard to believe since less than 3% were even old enough to have been around during the Israeli attack by the Arab League Forces in 1948-49 _(War of Independence)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 29, 2015)

As stated over and over again, terrorist versus freedom fighter is based on perspective. The Muhajedin fighting the Russian occupation forces were considered freedom fighters by the U.S. and became  became terrorists almost overnight when they turned on the U.S. occupation forces.   

The actions of occupied or colonized people fighting to achieve regain land they were dispossessed of by a foreign invader is not comparable to performing terrorist acts in lands the perpetrator or a recent ancestor has immigrated to. The non-white South Africans had every right to attack their white rulers and, in fact, those freedom fighters (labeled as terrorists by Apartheid regime and the U.S. then, much like the Palestinians are labeled terrorists by the Zionist regime and the U.S. now)  are national heroes in South Africa today.


Regarding the status of Palestinian refugees.

The eviction and dispossession of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the Jews was as a direct result of an illegal action of the UN.  The Palestine Commission at the  U.N. Security Council 253rd Meeting (S/PV.253), February 24, 1948 determined that the partition plan should be implemented against the will of the majority population of Palestine by force. The U.N. had never done anything of the sort before and has never done anything of the sort since.  The British made it clear that they would not implement the partition plan, given the rejection of it by the majority of the population of Palestine.

“if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”

_Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 2nd Meeting, September 26, 1947,_

For this reason the UN made the refugee status of the Palestinians apply to descendants of the male line until the Palestinians are made whole.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.
> 
> ...


They also stated that they would not support any solution that was not agreed upon by both sides.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq, Boston1, et al,
> 
> Wow...  I have ofter heard pro-Palestinians speak out of turn, relative to their "right to use all means necessary'" without regard to the law.  They have often defended their right to attack unarmed civilians.  They have indeed perfected the art of attacking unarmed civilians since before the time of the Six Day War.
> 
> ...


The Palestinians have an extensive history and a pattern of unchallengeable criminal behavior.​
The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.

So what criminal behavior are you talking about?


----------



## hadit (Dec 29, 2015)

The bottom line here remains, the Israelis are going nowhere.  They have the weaponry to destroy themselves along with whomever is attacking them, and will turn the entire area into glass if need be.  It is obvious that the Arab nations surrounding her cannot eliminate her by force without themselves being destroyed in the process.  This makes Israel the strong entity in the area, despite her tiny size.  The world carved out a homeland for the Jews in that area, and that is where they will stay.  Arguing over what the British may have said or intended in 1922 is as pertinent as arguing that the Roman occupation of the area is what really needs to be reversed and the whole place be handed over to the Israelis for their use.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.
> 
> So what criminal behavior are you talking about?



What?  In what world are 13 year old boys and babies in strollers at bus stops acceptable targets for attacks?  On what planet are those not criminal acts?  You are using word games and technicalities of legal meanings of words to absolve Palestinians of clear wrong doing.  Vile.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

In drawing a consensus, rarely is there a collective where everyone agrees.  In high political management we say Positives, Concerns, Ideas, Solutions (PCIS)...  Unless you have a body of "yes men" or a "corrupt program" where the driving force is a hidden agenda, you are not going to address anything of importance where a large body will immediately agree on any give position.

“I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” _President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti Zionism”, ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky._​



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It was merely 6-months before the General Assembly adopted the Majority plan (Partition), submitted by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), that the British position _(presented to the House of Commons)_ was stated fairly clear:


152. His Majesty’s Government considered that these proposals were consistent with the terms both of the League Mandate and of Article 76 of the United Nations Charter. They also looked forward to an early termination of the trust:

“His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. The proposals contained in the present memorandum are designed to give the two peoples and opportunity of demonstrating their ability to work together for the good of Palestine as a whole and so providing a stable foundation for an independent State.”​153. The latest British proposals were rejected both by the Arab Delegations _(which include, at the second part of the London conference, a Delegation representing the Palestine Arab Higher Executive)_, and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Thereupon the Mandatory decided to refer the problem to the United Nations.​
The UNSCOP Proposal, because it was NOT unanimous accepted, had two different forces driving it.  The "Arab Rejection" was based on the three legged stool, with one one leg rooted in the argument that the based on population and private ownership; one leg based on the the ideas that the Arabs were the long standing inhabitance and indigenous population _(associated with self-determination)_; and the final leg was based on the the various perceived promises of the assumption of regional power as an independent Arab State.

The Arabs of Palestine were contesting the two-state solution; only from the perspective that the did not get the Lion's Share of the territory.  They has absolutely no sympathy at all --- or felt any moral obligation to protect and preserve the Jewish People that had been persecuted under the color of law all across Europe, North Africa, and the Mediterranean; including England.  Whether we talk about the 250 C.E. Carthage Expulsion; the 722 C.E. Byzantium Rule that Judaism was Outlawed; 1096 C.E. when in Northern France and Germany an estimated 30% of the Jewish Population was Massacred; between 1218 C.E. and 1236 C.E. England Jews Forced to Wear Badges,
the Jews fell prey to the Rome Inquisition, or when France Forced Conversion/Massacre; or when Jews were periodically burned alive for the pleasure of German Princes _(1270, 1285, 1308, 1349 C.E.)_; AND all during the 1400 thru 1800's the expulsions, burnings, mob attacks and slaughter which took place that brought the Allied Powers to the conclusion that the best Humanitarian effort would be to create a Jewish National Home (Balfour Declaration) from which the Jewish people would be protect and could defend themselves from the corrupt, malfeasant and barbaric rules of the time.  And of course, between the time the Balfour Declaration was publish until the the end of WWII, the Jewish has to endure one further indignity in the wholesale genocide effort in which approximately six million Jews were killed Nazi regime with the assistance of other European and Arab collaborators.  As we all know, the Palestinian Black Hand of the late 1920's thru 1930's and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam _(names sake for the rocket built in Gaza to launch against Israelis)_ conducted jihadist activities and attack against Jewish immigrants encouraged to all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home in accordance with the Mandate. 

In any major decision, there will be opposing points of view.  At some point, absent effective and exclusive territorial control, the Arab must at some point, accept the outcome they have crafted for themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Dec 29, 2015)

Boston1 said:


> I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is
> 
> Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...
> 
> ...


Posting the same story 5 times, is not like posting 5 separate reports on the same issue.  Ban Ki-moon is a US puppet.  How he became General Secretary is a joke.  Just like his comment about UN bias towards Israel.  I couldn't help notice he doesn't say how that bias is manifested.

I proved to you there was no bias and not only do you refuse to comment on my evidence, you continue to push this nonsense in spite of the evidence I presented.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Nonsense.  *Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.*



Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Just as I said before, the Palestinians cannot openly target and specifically attack "civilians" whether it is an international conflict {Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I,} or a non-International Conflict {Article 13(3) of Additional Protocol II}.


See Partical History:  See Links
*List of Palestinian suicide attacks*
*Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada*
It does not go back as far as the 1972 Massacre in Munich at the Winter Olympics

It is actually an example of you attempted to justify the attacks on unarmed civilians. There is no exemption except for the one I previously posted, that allows for Palestinian Jihadist, terrorist, insurgent, and irregular forces to directly target, or by an act of depraved indifference, unarmed or innocent civilians.

Ma'ale Adumim attempted bombing October 11, 2015 Ma'ale Adumim --- Palestinian female bomber detonates a bomb in her car after being stopped by traffic cops, on the road from Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem. 



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> In drawing a consensus, rarely is there a collective where everyone agrees.  In high political management we say Positives, Concerns, Ideas, Solutions (PCIS)...  Unless you have a body of "yes men" or a "corrupt program" where the driving force is a hidden agenda, you are not going to address anything of importance where a large body will immediately agree on any give position.
> 
> ...


The Arabs of Palestine were contesting the two-state solution; only from the perspective that the did not get the Lion's Share of the territory.​
Not true. They objected giving half of their country to foreign colonists.

You need to read up.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Nonsense.  *Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.*
> 
> ...


Settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. Without the settlers Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that.


----------



## theliq (Dec 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq, Boston1, et al,
> 
> Wow...  I have ofter heard pro-Palestinians speak out of turn, relative to their "right to use all means necessary'" without regard to the law.  They have often defended their right to attack unarmed civilians.  They have indeed perfected the art of attacking unarmed civilians since before the time of the Six Day War.
> 
> ...


WHAT A WONDERFUL POST FROM ROCCO.........NOT...the reality is thus.......

The Facts are during this conflict...PALESTINIAN DEATHS...94,765///////87,307 MAIMED.......ISRAELI DEATHS.....24,969//////28,000 MAIMED

in 2014.............US "AID" TO ISRAEL....$10 MILLION PER DAY TO ISRAEL...............NIL TO PALESTINIANS

HOUSE DEMOLITIONS ..ISRAEL NIL..........PALESTINIANS.........28,217(this does not include the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian HOMES destroyed circa 1948-1950 when the policy was to RAZE Palestinian Villages and Towns......and forced deportations of Palestinians.so that the Jewish powers at be........ could continue their LIE that these areas we NOT HABITATED.this Bullshit continues today

IMPRISONED.....ISRAELIS  NIL................PALESTINIANS.......6,743

You see Rocco with respect,your tally does not stand up to real theliq scrutiny....I know you like to defend Israel but you are defending the indefensible


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 29, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > theliq, Boston1, et al,
> ...


Stevie bhoy, I didn't realize you were a stand-up comedian, until now. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your dingo.


----------



## theliq (Dec 30, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Well yes just another of my talents but you may think that my truth is a Joke but to me NOT......But seasons greeting to you my friend Hoss from me and my dog LOL


----------



## theliq (Dec 30, 2015)

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


I also administer a Truth Potion for Guys like you,Jroc,and all and am getting so proficient at it.....I inject it through the eye of your Cock..Ouch,....LOL Etianne


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 30, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

I'll talk that as a left-handed complement --- anyway.



theliq said:


> WHAT A WONDERFUL POST FROM ROCCO.........NOT...the reality is thus.......
> 
> The Facts are during this conflict...PALESTINIAN DEATHS...94,765///////87,307 MAIMED.......ISRAELI DEATHS.....24,969//////28,000 MAIMED
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I don't particularly care for Dr Noam Chomsky, but every once in a while, he comes out with a nugget of pure gold.

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.” 
― _Noam Chomsky, PhD_​
In any dissension of a political nature, --- _Good 'vs' Evil --- Right 'vs' Wrong --- Human 'vs' Cylon --- Peace 'vs' Jihad ---_ there is an element in which conflicting moral teachings from our individual societies confront  secular or compliance oriented leadership.

One side of the equation says:

•  It cannot intentionally target the civilian population.​The other side of the equation says:

•  It may incite jihad, act of terrorism, and calls for disturbances (intifada) with impunity.
•  It may use Protected persons to commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, they may commit acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power; or offenses which caused the death with impunity.
•  It may intentionally attack, kidnap and murder Civilians in the course of operations.
•  It has the right to use any and all means to combat Israel.
•  It may locate  any Military offensive weapons and launch from any  Densely Populated Areas  use to shield military objectives.
•  It is not required to extract civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military offensive operations.
•  It may use civilian or other protected person to cover and concealment to areas or military operations. 
•  It may use UN and ICRC emblems, markings, facilities and equipment to cover and conceal military operations.​You may choose which is "good" and which is "evil."  

There is no life to be found in violence. Every act of violence brings us closer to death. 
Whether it's the mundane violence we do to our bodies by overeating toxic food or drink or the extreme violence of child abuse, 
domestic warfare, life-threatening poverty, addiction, or state terrorism.
_Dr Gloria Jean Watkins_ _(literary double: Bell Hooks)_​
I defend the concept that: nothing can justify terrorism — ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.  IF:  You want to call that "Indefensible."  THEN we are on opposite ends of the equation.  If my cause for the protection, preservation, security and cultural development of a societal clan that has nearly gone extinct several times, then --- I defend the indefensible against the Arab Intolerance and Islamic Radicalism.  It is what it is --- I am what I am.

First, the numbers mean nothing.  They are absolute values and have nothing to do with the basic equation about whether the question is _--- Good 'vs' Evil --- Right 'vs' Wrong --- Jewish People 'vs' Arab Jihadist _...   Your imbalance of casualties is merely an appeal for sympathy from those (individually or collectively) having a higher power --- those that have the ability to change the course of human events in either direction.

It must be understood that in a life and death struggle, there is no alternative for the Jewish People.  If they lose (not an option) even one major confrontation, their right-to-self-determination will fall and the world will see the extinction of the (not "a" Jewish State but the) only Jewish State.  On the other hand, if the Arabs of Palestinians fail, it will be just another case --- in a long list --- of the many Arab/Muslim states that have failed, have been conquered, or have been destroyed (largely by their own hand); or Arab tribes that have been consolidated or assimilated into a larger --- more powerful and effective Arab State.

Yes, it must be true, that I defend the indefensible --- A Peaceful Jewish State --- out numbered in every case, attack by the Arab League more than once --- and​


----------



## montelatici (Dec 30, 2015)

Like most recent colonial projects that were unable to completely eliminate the native people, Israel will fail.  It is just a matter of time. 2 generations maybe 3 at most. Demographics in the territory controlled by Israel will become overwhelmingly non-Jewish in that time.


----------



## Hossfly (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Like most recent colonial projects that were unable to completely eliminate the native people, Israel will fail.  It is just a matter of time. 2 generations maybe 3 at most. Demographics in the territory controlled by Israel will become overwhelmingly non-Jewish in that time.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> I'll talk that as a left-handed complement --- anyway.
> 
> ...


I defend the concept that: nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.​
But you are a major apologist for Israeli state terrorism.

How do you square that circle?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Like most recent colonial projects that were unable to completely eliminate the native people, Israel will fail.  It is just a matter of time. 2 generations maybe 3 at most. Demographics in the territory controlled by Israel will become overwhelmingly non-Jewish in that time.


Not to mention that expelled Palestinians are more of a threat than those still in country.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Like most recent colonial projects that were unable to completely eliminate the native people, Israel will fail.  It is just a matter of time. 2 generations maybe 3 at most. Demographics in the territory controlled by Israel will become overwhelmingly non-Jewish in that time.


Actually, it was the Ottoman colonial project that failed to eliminate the Jews. 

More recently, it was the arab-moslem jihad projects (plural) that failed to eliminate the Jews. 

The arab-moslem jihadists have failed consistently and have already lost their appetite for dying. Another couple of generations and the the arab-moslems will realize their gee-had - _it be broken.
_
You can do your own gee-had'in, wannabe.


----------



## hadit (Dec 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Like most recent colonial projects that were unable to completely eliminate the native people, Israel will fail.  It is just a matter of time. 2 generations maybe 3 at most. Demographics in the territory controlled by Israel will become overwhelmingly non-Jewish in that time.
> ...


Interesting how so many for so long have attempted to eliminate Jews from the planet, and all have failed, miserably.  In fact, Jews today have their own home land, from which they will not leave.  In addition, they have successfully, on multiple occasions, defended that home land against multiple attacks from multiple foes.  It's almost as if someone far more powerful than all the irrational haters is protecting them and making them prosper.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I've heard that before.  But you don't offer much in support of a counter arguement,



P F Tinmore said:


> But you are a major apologist for Israeli state terrorism.
> 
> How do you square that circle?


*(COMMENT)*

State Terrorism _(acts of terrorism conducted by a state)_ in order to be intelligible, must have a definition of "terrorism" to adequately accuse Israel of committing.

On the other hand, the attempts by the State of Israel at disrupting, dismantling, and eventually defeating Palestinians, and their affiliates, in their unlawful use or threatened use of force and violence against the sovereignty of the State of Israel --- it's security of Israeli citizens and national interests is called "counterterrorism."  It is something much different.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TERMINATING TOO MANY TERRORIST!  _( A ratio of 1 innocent Israeli to 100 HoAP is good; 1 to 1000 is better.  But the death of one citizen from HoAP activity is still too many.)_  The numbers may look lopsided; but, this is the true face and nature of a successful counterterrorism program.

•  Defeat terrorist organizations of a global reach
•  Deny terrorists the sponsorship, support, and sanctuary they need to survive
•  Diminish the underlying conditions that promote the despair and destructive visions of political change that lead people to embrace terrorism
•  Defend against terrorist attacks, our citizens and our interests around the world​
And it is not terrorism to put the greatest focus of fear on the terrorist.  The maximization in degrading the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), --- killing or capturing key lieutenants, eliminating safe-havens, facilities, and encampments is just one single operational aspect for successfully disrupting existing lines of HoAP support.  The fact that the HoAP terrorist, and there affiliated (active or passive) support groups, are terrorized by the notion that they may themselves be targeted for detection, exploration and neutralization IS NOT terrorism; but "counterterrorism."

For the HoAP, it is like looking into the mirror.  They will see the fear they intended to disseminate --- coming back to them.  Any day is a good day to neutralize a terrorist.  The hope is that someday there will be no further people needed for Counterterrorism Programs because there will be no more HoAP to neutralize.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Dec 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've heard that before.  But you don't offer much in support of a counter arguement,
> 
> ...



You sound remarkably like the enablers of Apartheid that labeled the liberation movements in Apartheid South Africa as terrorists. 

“A considerable number of the ANC leaders are Communists… When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life… I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practises violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO or the IRA
	
 and would not do so.”

Margaret Thatcher


----------



## theliq (Dec 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> I'll talk that as a left-handed complement --- anyway.
> 
> ...


Gee Rocco I always though the US as being the 2nd State of Israel........but anyway this is a thread on Israel and the Palestinians,who are not Jihardists but a people reclaiming their lives and land back.

How can you call the Jewish Terrorist Groups before and after 1948 not Terrorists,or is that something that has slipped your mind again........Israel was born through Terrorism,Zionists and other..........for you to espouse Israel as squeaky clean, clearly shows how Deluded you are......You cannot re-write history as you try to.............Why are Jews always Right to you,despite a history of barbarity,inparticular to the Palestinians.

This is a Life and Death struggle for the Palestinians too Rocco,something you never mention.....I believe in a 2 State Solution,my truthful statement(Jewish Sourced by the way) on the Deaths and Maimings are lopsided in favour of the Jews,it is an imbalance but neither the Palestinians or I seek Sympathy at all but remining you of the shocking truth.A word not clearly understood by you obviously.

Don't lie to me,You clearly defend Terrorism in all it's guises.......I don't believe in a one state solution and neither do the majority of Israelis......the problem in Israel at the moment is that the Mad Men are in Power and as Mad as Cut Snakes they are.

You Guys are so negative,thankfully some Israelis are doing a Great Job,for instance the current effort to educate the Bedouin sic population in Israel and prevent them being indoctoriated sic by the likes of ISIS, this is a Jewish/Palestinian collaboration and working well.....Everything Rocco is in Israels hands they have the Power for real change and hopefully this will happen.....Others may hate Israel I do not neither do the Palestinians,not forgetting they lived together for thousands of years...It could all be so different........Trouble is at present it is the Mad Minority on both side causing mayhem..So don't you become one of them my friend,Together both these peoples can create a Peaceful Solution............Best Regards Steve


----------



## Challenger (Jan 6, 2016)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Yes it would. What's your point?


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


That there are so many whining about Israel "illegally" occupying territory that would be very happy should the surrounding nations illegally drive Israel out and occupy the territory.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I think that you will find that most colonized people are keen to see the back of the colonizers.  However, I would prefer a South African solution where the colonizers remain as equals, unlike the Rhodesian or Algerian solution.


----------



## theliq (Jan 6, 2016)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Most people don't hate Jews,other than Terrorist Zionists but they are hated by Jews anyway.......so stop mouthing off bullshit........What a lot of FOLK don't like is Israel's inability to find a peaceful solution......the last time this was close,the Jews assassinated their own Prime Minster Mr Rabin......................I think ENOUGH SAID........steven


----------



## theliq (Jan 6, 2016)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I don't think so.....most want a FAIR,YES FAIR......2 State Solution,not the 1 State Solution Dopes like you want and their in lies the problem.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



I think you will find that the Islamic colonizers are being forced out of the lands they colonized earlier. Call it social Darwinism if you like but much like the Islamic Crusaders / colonizers were given the Bum's Rush out of Europe, the Islamic colonizers are being forced out of the lands known as the disputed territories. It happens when a modern, technical culture collides with a retrograde one.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 6, 2016)

If the palestinians are going to insist on a four state solution; Jordan, Gaza and the disputed territories vs Israel then NO there isn't likely to be an agreement anytime soon. If the palestinians are going to try and impose a hostile nation within a nation type settlement then no there isn't going to be an agreement anytime soon. If the palestinians are going to insist on violence as a means of negotiating then no, there isn't going to be an agreement anytime soon.

Ad infinitum

The deal is if the palestinians would like to act like civilized people and negotiate in good faith then sure. But who is Israel going to negotiate with ? There is no one presently representing the palestinians or speaking for them or even just governing them. There simply isn't anyone for the Israeli's to negotiate with who has both the authority and the power to enforce those negotiations within the palestinian population


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

theliq said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"the last time this was close"
1985? Not even close...
Ehud Olmert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## theliq (Jan 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> If the palestinians are going to insist on a four state solution; Jordan, Gaza and the disputed territories vs Israel then NO there isn't likely to be an agreement anytime soon. If the palestinians are going to try and impose a hostile nation within a nation type settlement then no there isn't going to be an agreement anytime soon. If the palestinians are going to insist on violence as a means of negotiating then no, there isn't going to be an agreement anytime soon.
> 
> Ad infinitum
> 
> The deal is if the palestinians would like to act like civilized people and negotiate in good faith then sure. But who is Israel going to negotiate with ? There is no one presently representing the palestinians or speaking for them or even just governing them. There simply isn't anyone for the Israeli's to negotiate with who has both the authority and the power to enforce those negotiations within the palestinian population


refer to my previous post,when there was the Israeli negotiator was Assinated......


----------



## theliq (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


It was actually and what did you and your cronies do.......Assinated Mr Rabin,former Security and Head of the Military and later Prime Minister.......there was a real Man and a real Jew


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Rabin was a pussy.
2008...an offer...a refusal...what a shock.


----------



## theliq (Jan 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


O Yeah........He was the Greatest Jew in Israels  History by far.........Head of Israeli Security.....Head of the Armed Forces and Prime Minister......He and Mr Peres knew that Peace was achievable moreover a 2 State Solution and self determination for the Palestinians.........He was Greatly Admired World Wide.

For a Curr like you to say such hienious ROT merely shows us all such DEPRAVITY Jews like you have become..........it rhymes, SCUM.

Respect to Mr Rabin.......Respect to decent Jews,Respect to the Palestinians....................you merely walk in the shadows


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Kiss my a$$, self-hating, piece of shit, assimilated Jew.
Rabin was on the threshold of destroying Israel.
He flushed a brilliant past away probably because he was offered a mansion in France next to Mrs. Arafat.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


BDS is a call for equality.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


REALLY?
Do Shiites call for boycotts against Sunnis?
Do Sunnis call for boycotts against Shiites?
How about Kurds?
Actually, what I like about Muslims is that they don't boycott each other, they Murder each other and then blame in on the JOOS.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



No, IBS is a front.

Israel is not an apartheid state, which is the whole premise that IBS is filed under.

The simple reality is that the war must end and negotiations must begin. No one wants to see innocent civilians getting hurt. Stop the violence and start the negotiations. But first stop the violence. You can't expect Israel to drop its guard in the face of an ongoing war.

The problem is that the palestinians have one state already and very likely another eventually so negotiating a third is kinda disingenuous when the original intention was for a two state solution. Jordan needs to step up and quit discrimination against the palestinians who want to emigrate there. Gaza as well.

As it sits there will be no return to the 67 borders which the palestinians or the Arab stated never recognized anyway right up until they realized the Israeli's had won militarily and there would be no victory other than at the negotiating table.

While Israel has always been willing to offer land for peace, this particular land is vital to national security in an atmosphere of ongoing hostilities

the palestinians only hope is to end the hostilities BEFORE entering into serious negotiations with a leadership that is actually in control of ALL the palestinains


----------



## montelatici (Jan 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Israel is the quintessential Apartheid State.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 6, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You know, you're right.
We ALL agree with you.
Now please SHUT THE FVCK UP!


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


No he did not, he brought a level of decency to the position of Leadership in Israel..never seen before or since...He was NEVER on any threshold of destroying Israel ...only improving it.......his ASSINATION put Israel back 30 years...as we have all seen.

I don't mind what you say about me,because it's all "SHIT OFF MY BACK" and I can handle a Curr  like you...but don't try to degrade a Man like Mr Rabin or other pro Palestinian posters on here........I can always smell a Shit Head even from here and you are complete SHIT.

Phew go take a bath Indie,and wash your stinking mouth out........YOU>>>>>>>>>>STINK


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

Yikes

OK the flaming contest is hardly an intelligent exchange

How about if we all agree to forgo the effort to outdo one another in the insult department and stick to the subject.

If you don't think another poster has anything of substance to add, simply put them on ignore. I have.

Deal is I rather enjoy this subject and I hate it when an otherwise interesting conversation breaks down into some kinda jack ass contest


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yikes
> 
> OK the flaming contest is hardly an intelligent exchange
> 
> ...


Fair enough,but I do love incinerating..........to be truthful Boss,mind you the rest of my post was factual,even though Indie finds it hard to comprehend......but I do respond when some one asks me toliqhisASSHOLE.............Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!steve


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes
> ...


I wonder how you'll feel when your grandchildren are celebrating Christmas and have no idea who Rabin was.


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Another way of wording that is, "Why should Israel be held to a standard no other nation is held to?".  Europe was artificially carved up by WWI.  Why is the world not demanding that all the boundaries be set back to before the war?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

I don't recall that any colony that would be developed into a state was established in Europe for people from another continent after WW1. Nor do I recall any action that evicted hundreds of thousands of European native people to make way for people from another continent.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. A lot of countries were created at this same time but you don't see any other ongoing wars about it. Its pretty obvious this is an issue of racism and not one of justice


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I don't recall that any colony that would be developed into a state was established in Europe for people from another continent after WW1. Nor do I recall any action that evicted hundreds of thousands of European native people to make way for people from another continent.


Yeah, those nations that told the Arabs living in that area to get out of the way because it would be a simple operation to get the Jews out of it were wrong.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

hadit said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall that any colony that would be developed into a state was established in Europe for people from another continent after WW1. Nor do I recall any action that evicted hundreds of thousands of European native people to make way for people from another continent.
> ...



The operation was an attempt to prevent the Europeans from evicting the native people and transforming the European colony into a state for Europeans at the expense of the native people.  The Europeans could have been of any religion, for example,  the European colonists in Algeria, and Rhodesia were Christians.

The British knew this was the case as recently declassified documents have confirmed.  The British declared that the only possible way that the Palestinians might be saved from murder and/or eviction as a result of European (Jewish) aggression was the intervention of the Arab states.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare *armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show......The British government knew from the moment it planned to withdraw its forces from Palestine more than 60 years ago that partition of the territory and the founding of the state of Israel would lead to war and defeat for the Arabs, secret documents released make clear.....*After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, *British officials reported later in 1946:* "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists."* But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


The British were right.  They knew the Arab hatred of Jews runs extremely deep, and they would take whatever steps they could to prevent a Jewish nation in the region.  They were also right that the Arab nations would fail (and spectacularly so) to drive the tiny, nascent nation out.  Gee, it's almost like those Bronze age Jewish writers really knew what they were talking about when they predicted this would happen.  Again, it's difficult to take the outrage seriously when it is so selectively pointed solely at Israel.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

hadit said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The British knew, as the declassified documents show, that the murderous invading European (Jews) were intent on evicting the native people. It had nothing to do with Arab (Christian and Muslim) hatred of Jews, it had to do with their hatred of a murderous European invader.  Understand the difference?


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Wow, the murderous invading Jews, who had just come out of a real genocide attempt in which some 6 million of their own were slaughtered like so many sheep, are going to have less than a million people drive out over a million of those living in the area that were backed by many million more in the much larger, established surrounding nations? These are some super duper bad guys!  Sounds a lot like what they did after coming out of slavery in Egypt.  We'd better not mess with them!


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

What would you call people from another continent that go to a territory to evict and/or kill hundreds of thousands of the native people in order to establish a colony and state for themselves?  Not murderous?


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



murderous invading European Jews ?


montelatici said:


> What would you call people from another continent that go to a territory to evict and/or kill hundreds of thousands of the native people in order to establish a colony and state for themselves?  Not murderous?



Nonsense, lets review

The Judaic people returned from mostly the surrounding states, only about 35% came from Europe.

See
Demographics of Israel 

We've been over this time and time again however it doesn't seem to fit your revisionist diatribe so once again you are ignoring all facts in favor of your hatred inspired justifications.

So once again your racist nonsense is based off lies

Of all the native peoples in Africa and the Middle east the Judaic people are the ONLY ones to be thus slandered and its more than obvious that racism is the central theme. 

Injustice has nothing to do with your hatred of indigenous peoples.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> What would you call people from another continent that go to a territory to evict and/or kill hundreds of thousands of the native people in order to establish a colony and state for themselves?  Not murderous?



What do you call a people who have been driven from their home and nation and long to return to it, and finally can and do?  

It is revisionist to call the Jewish people European colonial invaders because it completely disconnects us from our history and our homeland.  No other peoples is disconnected from their homeland and their history the way the Jewish people are.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Close to 100% of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine came from Europe or were Europeans from the Americas and Oceania. 1936 is a typical year. You can go through all the years of the Mandate if you like.  The facts are available from official archives, why rely on Zionist propaganda if you really want to have a serious discussion.  The Survey of Palestine volumes 1,2 and3 are available at NYU's and Wagner's Berman Jewish Policy Archive.  The link is below the tables.










A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ NYU Wagner


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Close to 100% of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine came from Europe or were Europeans from the Americas and Oceania. 1936 is a typical year. You can go through all the years of the Mandate if you like.  The facts are available from official archives, why rely on Zionist propaganda if you really want to have a serious discussion.  The Survey of Palestine volumes 1,2 and3 are available at NYU's and Wagner's Berman Jewish Policy Archive.  The link is below the tables.
> 
> 
> View attachment 59091
> ...



Your arguments are disingenuous at best again. Your graph of immigration in 1936 ( deliberately so small it takes magnifying glasses to read it ) shows ONLY immigration from Europe and fails to even list other countries other than in the America's Australia and Europe. Not a very accurate way to actually count up all immigration if your only counting it from the area's you wish to lie about and say contributed 100% to OVERALL immigration.

Sad sad reality is once again your hatred is blinding you to the facts

Only about 35% of the returnees came from Europe.
See previous ref.

Oh and your source doesn't seem to contain that graph, if it does, its poorly referenced as the site is quite large.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What would you call people from another continent that go to a territory to evict and/or kill hundreds of thousands of the native people in order to establish a colony and state for themselves?  Not murderous?
> ...



When they evict and/or murder hundreds of thousands of the native inhabitants, based on a hunch that over 2,000 years prior there was a distant relative from the area, I call them invading, murderering, land grabbers. What else can they be called after evicting and/or murdering people whose ancestors had lived in an area for over 2,000 years, based on a hunch and a fairy tale.

Besides the Roma there are plenty of people that were evicted from their homelands, the Istrians, and many others.  Nothing unique there.  Plus, why in the hell should the Palestinians have been punished for the the alleged persecution of European Jews by other Europeans.  It is exasperating to observe Zionists justifying the hell they are putting the Palestinians through.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



There will be no return to the 67 line for a number of reasons. Which you seem desperate to avoid. The Arabs adamantly refuse to acknowledge the line in the first place, now its some kinda holly grail. The Arabs started the wars that led to the need for the land in the first place. So handing it back when there is an ongoing conflict is ludicrous. 

In the end no rational critically thinking individual would even contemplate giving up a vibrant and thriving part of Israel to accommodate the illusion of there having ever been a state called palestine. Its simply not going to happen.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

Monte's link also only covers up to 1946 if I read it correctly.  The Arab nations didn't start expelling the Jewish people until 1948 and continued through the 1950's.  Nearly a million Jewish people during those years were forced to relocated to Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

A hunch and a fairy tale?  See?  That's how the Jewish people are denied our heritage and history.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Monte's link also only covers up to 1946 if I read it correctly.  The Arab nations didn't start expelling the Jewish people until 1948 and continued through the 1950's.  Nearly a million Jewish people during those years were forced to relocated to Israel.



The man is blinded by his own hatred.

No matter how often you point out his errors, the racism and bigotry shines and he simply can't face reality.

The situation don't develop in just one year and its ridiculous to try and prove 100% of the returnees came from just one place by excluding consideration of any other place.

In the words of my latest girlfriend "thats redone"

In the end, there will be no return to the 67 lines. No giving up of Jerusalem, no abandonment of area C and no third state for those claiming to have no state.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Close to 100% of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine came from Europe or were Europeans from the Americas and Oceania. 1936 is a typical year. You can go through all the years of the Mandate if you like.  The facts are available from official archives, why rely on Zionist propaganda if you really want to have a serious discussion.  The Survey of Palestine volumes 1,2 and3 are available at NYU's and Wagner's Berman Jewish Policy Archive.  The link is below the tables.
> ...



Nearly 100% of the Jews that migrated to Palestine during the Mandate period were from Europe, Americas or Oceania. The data is available in the link provided.  If you want to repeat your propaganda without referring to the official figures, fine, but it just confirms you are full of shit. By the way, why do you post bullshit that is so easily debunked.  

Before 1948, 90% of the Jewish immigrants were BORN in Europe and most of the rest were born in the Americas , Oceania or maybe  in Israel.!!! How many could have come from Asia or North Africa?  The claim that only 35% of the immigrants were from Europe prior to Israel's independence  is the usual Zionist lie.  












http://www.columbia.edu/~yc2444/From Haven to Heaven-Changes in Immigration Patterns to Israel.pdf


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Monte's link also only covers up to 1946 if I read it correctly.  The Arab nations didn't start expelling the Jewish people until 1948 and continued through the 1950's.  Nearly a million Jewish people during those years were forced to relocated to Israel.
> ...



You are blinded by the propaganda.  I rely on facts. You refuse to rely on facts.  You refuse to read the official immigration tables from the Survey because you know that they will disprove the Zionist propaganda.

Fortunately there other neutral (even Jewish) sources like the link to Columbia University archives,  where the facts can be found. The Zionist propaganda does not work anymore.  Nice try though.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

Again you are desperate to avoid the topic. There will be no consideration of returning to a border that the Arabs insist never existed in the first place. 

There is already at least one palestinian state and until that one is acknowledged I don't see a reason to discuss another one. 

Your monologue concerning the demographics of the returnees is blatant racism. If you break it down by years and regions I'm sure you can say just about anything you want, but if you look at the numbers in any rational way, only about 35% of the returnees are from Europe. ;--) 

Simply because you wish to only consider the years where European returnees were carefully counted and returnees from surrounding Arab nations were ignored doesn't mean that the overall numbers aren't exactly as specified, about 35%


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The facts can be found and you're not posting them?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> A hunch and a fairy tale?  See?  That's how the Jewish people are denied our heritage and history.



Whatever heritage claimed, from over 2,000 years ago, does not give the people that claim this heritage the right to evict and or murder native people living in an area for over 2,000 years.   The Tamils claim Sri Lanka was their homeland and part of their heritage.  The British did not help bring over more Tamils from India to populate the country and evict the native Sinhalese.  It would have been wrong.


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

Still desperately avoiding the issues surrounding this fantasy about a return ? 

Sorry but the obvious truth is that the palestinians are still engaged in active warfare and have no right whatsoever to ANOTHER state. 

Three Palestinians who tried to stab Israeli soldiers shot dead: army


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I just did, from an alternative source in the Columbia University archives, because you clowns are too lazy to download and read official records from the Survey of Palestine Vol. 1. So, if 90% were from Europe what percent were from the Americas and Oceania?  What would that leave for the 65% the other clown claims came from Muslim countries?










http://www.columbia.edu/~yc2444/From Haven to Heaven-Changes in Immigration Patterns to Israel.pdf


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Posting War & Peace again!


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

Avoiding the topic is more like it with whatever racist nonsense he can come up with.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > A hunch and a fairy tale?  See?  That's how the Jewish people are denied our heritage and history.
> ...



I agree with you wholeheartedly.  The Jewish people do not have the right to evict and murder.  Fortunately, no one is arguing that the Jewish people have that right and the Jewish people neither evicted nor committed genocide on Arab Muslims.  They did defend themselves in a conflict largely both begun and continued by the local Arabs with the assistance of the surrounding Arab Muslim nations.  

The Jewish people do, however, have the right to return to their homeland and re-claim a national sovereignty.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Still desperately avoiding the issues surrounding this fantasy about a return ?
> 
> Sorry but the obvious truth is that the palestinians are still engaged in active warfare and have no right whatsoever to ANOTHER state.
> 
> Three Palestinians who tried to stab Israeli soldiers shot dead: army



Of course.  People under colonial rule and/or under occupation have the right to resist colonization/occupation, don't you think?

"Let me quote and freely translate into English from a book, I wrote 15 years ago in Hebrew, _HaPalestinaim - Avar veHoveh_(The Palestinians- Past and Present, Tel-Aviv University Publishers, 1987). On page 219, regarding the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation, I reminded my readers:

*According to international law, the people of a country, occupied by a foreign power, has the full right to fight for their liberation.* The Palestinian people, inhabitants of the territories, Israel has conquered and is occupying by military means since June 1967, too have this briefed right. This right is based, among other reasons, also upon the guiding lines set for the International Tribunal in Nuremberg, which, after World War II, had been established to judge the main Nazi criminals. And let us never forget this fact! 

The statutory argument in article 2 of the indictments (concerning transgressions against the laws on conducts of war) at the Nuremberg Tribunal was based upon the Den-Hague International Convention of 1907. Article 6 (b) of the Tribunal's rules relies upon articles 1 and 2 of the accompanying letters of the said Den-Hague Convention, which particularly lie down the right to popular resistance against military occupation, within the occupied territories themselves, as well as outside them. Further on is said there, that all the means of this resistance, political as well as military ones, are valid (as far as they do not hurt civilians who have no part whatsoever in the occupation regime and its forces). This determination was, at the time, important to forestall any claim by the Nazis that the partisans, Ghetto fighters, and other underground resistance forces in the territories occupied by them had allegedly been _bandits _and _terrorists_. In the Nuremberg Tribunal it was unequivocally set down, that resistance fighters, such as the partisans and underground activists (also such who struggled within Germany itself), Ghetto fighters etc., acted in accordance with the regulations of international law, and in case of their detention by the occupation forces or the police of the occupying power, have to be considered to be Prisoners of War.

International law - and the matter was upheld by the Nuremberg Tribunal - outlaws any expropriation of property, houses and landed property included, in the occupied territories, with the exception of property needed for defensive security needs of the occupying army. However, also such expropriations are only temporarily ones, and any such property has to be returned after the war, with any damages occurred to be compensated. Particularly, the law also forbids any form of collective punishment for resistance against the occupation, such as house demolitions, curfew upon whole populated locations and geographic areas (article 2 and 3 of the attached letters to the Hague Convention). The Nuremberg Tribunal considered all kind of those measures taken by the occupying power as serious violations of international laws and conventions, as crimes against humanity."

peacepalestine: Hans Lebrecht - The Right to Resistance According to International Law


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...




They murdered and/or evicted several hundred thousand Christians and Muslims in 1946-1948.  The conflict was started by the Jews who began evicting said Christians and Muslims.  The Arab neighbors were the only hope to save the Palestinians, they were not successful, but they tried. The British confirm this in recently declassified intelligence reports.  As more and more intelligence are declassified as years go by, more and more  Zionist propaganda will be debunked.

*British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and *declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'*

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946:* "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition *so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." 

In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, *Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.*
*

So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation' | Page 43 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## Boston1 (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Still desperately avoiding the issues surrounding this fantasy about a return ?
> ...



Which is why you delude yourself into insisting there is an occupation and that 100% of israeli's are of European descent or blither on about colonialization; a term which is best applied to the Arab Muslim invasion of the 7th century. Oh I'm sure "some" are from Europe, but most aren't. The truth is that your hatred and bigotry are blinding you to even the basics.


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Statesmen,anywhere in the world Are Remembered......................................for generations,it is Shameful that you decry such a Great Jew,just shows how inept and morally corrupt you really are.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Usual Hasbara techniques.  I said that the Jews that invaded Palestine during the Mandate period were nearly 100% from Europe, which is exactly what the links I provided confirm.  

Providing facts to disprove the old Zionist propaganda you spout is a  community service.  It has nothing to do with hate, the only racist hate comes from you.


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


But I remind you clearly Boss,that the Palestinians were in Palestine long before the 7th Century........moreover despite all you have thrown at them....ARE STILL THERE.

VIVA The PALESTINIANS,VIVA PALESTINE......................The Right to Resistance


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


The bottom line is that you admire any Jew who aspires to be as not JewISH as possible.
You really think the world is going to love Jews who kotow to Jew hating group?
Check your history; that strategy never did seem to work out too well, did it?
You are a bootlicker...I am not.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Are you revising the history of Israel being attacked in 1948 and the indigenous Arab population hightailing it to Jordan?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



As declassified intelligence documents reveal.  The Jews attacked the native Arabs.  The Arab states tried to prevent the slaughter and eviction.  As the British stated, it was the Palestinian's only hope to save them from the murderous Jew's onslaught. 

*"British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'
*
The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how *British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.
*
In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition* so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes"

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Such Excellence Monti in your posts.......these two bit Zionists just aren't with the programme,their ignorance is dire to say the least...very difficult to have a rational conversation with such banal people...I find......but then Zionist Propaganda is all that's in their heads.

I suppose we should pity them really...steve...keep up the great work Monti.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Thanks, I try to do my part as a community service.  And, call me Fred.


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Your are an Idiot......"Hightailing to Jordan" Yeah kicked out of Palestine by Criminal Terrorist Jews,who Murdered them,Exile them,STOLE THEIR LAND,TRIED TO ELIMINATE THEM,RAZED THEIR HOMES AND VILLAGES..Where they had been for generations......to justify a JEWISH STATE.....then bringing in loads of Jews..Yeah what SHIT YOU SPEW YOU ARROGANT LITTLE WANKER................You must think we are all as STUPID AND IGNORANT AS YOU ARE.....You are Primed to be part of a Jewish Batallion sic of ISIS,such is your IMMORAL HATRED


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>


Very Repetitive and Boring even for you Vig..steve


Vigilante said:


>


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


So good it was worth posting twice!


----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


LOL,That's what I like about you Vig.........Amusing,Clever and Smart..steve,mind you you do set yourself up for a BACKHANDER (Aussie for Slap across your face) or TWO


----------



## montelatici (Jan 7, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



Ooh, UPPER CASE.
You're still a revisionist and a$$-licker.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## theliq (Jan 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


What can I say in response of those Pearls of Wisdom you post ???????????? Nothing Really because you are a Dead-Beat...........Bleat and Beat On


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2016)

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



You are dense...
Complete turmoil amongst the Arab world...
BUT...
The Palestinians are SO NICE!!!
Yes, I know, if only those evil assimilated Jews in Israel would allow themselves to be exterminated the rest of the Arab world would finally live in peace.
You logic is so...uncompelling.


----------



## theliq (Jan 8, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


As I said DEAD-BEAT.....keep Bleating your Zionist Terrorist Crap to yourself,I know you find it COMPELLING.

You can never become a Conscious Man,like many Jews and Palestinians and myself and Team Palestine on here.......because you are Morally Dead.

For My Jewish and Palestinian Friends>>>>>SOON FORWARD


----------



## hadit (Jan 8, 2016)

And, despite the irrational hatred, the Jews continue living in their ancestral lands.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 8, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>


----------



## theliq (Jan 8, 2016)

hadit said:


> And, despite the irrational hatred, the Jews continue living in their ancestral lands.


Hadit,there is a proviso here actually......I admit there was gross irrational hatred towards Jews for over nearly 2000 years in Christendom and the Jews who returned mainly from the 1920's to 1948 were a very different people from all parts of the world they came from....compared to their ancestors,these Jews were a traumatised people desperate for a homeland...........but their treatment of the Palestinians was merely the same as they had been treated themselves,this I find a complete Irony,which is lost to the majority of pro-Zionists posters on here.

The Palestinians had lived in peace with a small minority of Jews for over two thousand years,but this and the longevity of the Palestinians belonging to this Land was not considered,wrongly.In this modern era even today some Rabid Jews contest that Palestinians never lived in Palestine........This banal thinking defies belief but still they peddle this Zionist Trash.

A JEW is not some homogeneous group of people,they are different in so many ways as a society,Yes they all agree with the homeland of Israel,but after such a history why do the Jews deny the Palestinians a homeland ?????? considering the fact that really only the Palestinians lived in peace and friendship in the past......Yet you deny they exist,I note moreover that that you are silent against the Christians who in history tried to eliminate you as a race of people....YOUR SILIENCE ON THIS MATTER IS DEAFENING....WHY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????..steven


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 9, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


Produce a map drawn up by Israel that shows the borders agreed in 1948 when they declared independence of the mandate.​
Excellent point.

Perhaps you could post that 1948 map of Israel.


----------



## hadit (Jan 11, 2016)

theliq said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > And, despite the irrational hatred, the Jews continue living in their ancestral lands.
> ...


Silence on what matter?  The Jews have been persecuted by virtually the entire world for a very long time, but it is Christians of the 20th century who honored God's covenant with Israel and helped establish their homeland.  Face reality, there would be no "Palestinian" problem had the Arab nations not tried to destroy Israel in '67.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 11, 2016)

hadit said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



So the Christians are the Messiah? Interesting idea. As is the, strange notion that the "Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in '67"


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

hadit said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



It was the Israelis that attacked its neighbors and started the 67 War.  The CIA confirms it on their website.  

"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. *(OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.)* President Johnson was gratified that because of CIA analyses and Helms's tip, he could inform congressional leaders later in the day that he had been expecting Israel's move.["

CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War  — Central Intelligence Agency


----------



## hadit (Jan 11, 2016)

Challenger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



Also not in evidence.



> As is the, strange notion that the "Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in '67"



What were they trying to do with all those guns, tanks, and airplanes?  Have a tea party?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

hadit said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Trying to defend against an Israeli invasion.


----------



## hadit (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Which at that point had been stable for some 20 years and wasn't expanding or displacing anyone else.  They tried to destroy Israel and failed miserably.  Now they're reduced to keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps as political pawns instead of absorbing them and giving them decent lives.  Israel allows all her citizens, Jew and Arab alike, more freedom and a higher standard of living than do the surrounding nations.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

hadit said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I guess if you exclude invading Egypt in 1956 and occupying Gaza.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, of course this is accurate.



montelatici said:


> So good it was worth posting twice!









[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The WARSAW Ghetto was ≈ 400,000 Jews residing in an area of 3.4 sq km (1.3 sq mi).  In contrast, the West Bank is ≈ 3.3 million  5,655 sq km (2,183 sq mi).  Everyone in the Warsaw Ghetto was earmarked for the Death Camps (Treblinka, Poniatowa, Majdanek,Trawniki).  No one is earmarked for death in the West Bank.  There are no "Death Camps" anywhere under Israeli Control.



 *TRI-BORDER AREA 
ISRAEL - WEST BANK - JORDER*​
In the  31 July 1988 Disengagement Address, HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.


The 1949 Armistice Line is an unofficial reference line that PLO wants to establish as a Border.  This segment of the 1949 Armistice Line was dissolved under Article XII(2), Armistice Agreement by the 10/26/1994 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty with the delimitation of the international border in Article 3 --- International Boundary.

The State of Palestine never established borders by Treaty in the relative to Jordan, Israel or Egypt in the near three decades it has had since the proclamation of declaring Independence (1988).

The question of borders will probably remain in quest for two or three more generations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici,

I'm not sure I understand.



montelatici said:


> In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

In fact, I know I don't understand.

v/r
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand.
> 
> ...



If all goes well and peacefully, it will transform itself into a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all the people in the lands that are now under the control of Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici,  et al

What is the actual probability of that happening.  Would you bet the life of you loved-ones on it?

B ≥ p(L)  where it describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached; where the 'B' is greater than or equal to the  'p' probability that it will occur, times, the 'L' cost or liability.  Put another way, is your argument so certain that you would be willing to risk the lives of you family and/ or the future development of a nation.  

I don't think that there is any Arab State that has. in the last Century, demonstrated that they are capable of protecting the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --- OR --- establish a set of conditions that would make the country first amound nations to develop a standard of living that is the envy of the world.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I've seen the Middle East and the Muslim up close and personal.  I don't have much faith in them.  I certainly don't see and recent history that would lead me to believe that they are trustworthy.  Look at every Arab State that surrounds Israel.  Which one is the kind of state that you would want your kids to grow-up in?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. A country scores higher HDI when the life expectancy at birth is longer, the education period is longer, and the income per capita is higher. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an underdeveloped country. 


Why should anyone put their faith in such hands; especially the Jewish people who have suffered at the hands of people like yourself that preach the level of law and fairness, yet have taken every opportunity to suppress the Jewish people.

Of the 4 principle aggressors under which a Armistice was arranged in 1949, here are the rankings in comparison to Israel #18:

Lebanon is #67
Jordan is #80
Egypt is #108
Syria is #134
BTW:  Palestine ranked #113.  Of all the Islamic Countries in the world, none made it into the top 25, despite their riches.

Qatar #32
Saudi Arabia #39
UAE # 41
Bahrain #45
Kuwait #48
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.  Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes.  The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control.  In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, of course this is accurate.
> 
> ...


*



			(COMMENT)
		
Click to expand...

*


> The WARSAW Ghetto was ≈ 400,000 Jews residing in an area of 3.4 sq km (1.3 sq mi).  In contrast, the West Bank is ≈ 3.3 million  5,655 sq km (2,183 sq mi).  Everyone in the Warsaw Ghetto was earmarked for the Death Camps (Treblinka, Poniatowa, Majdanek,Trawniki).  No one is earmarked for death in the West Bank.  There are no "Death Camps" anywhere under Israeli Control.
> 
> View attachment 59516 *TRI-BORDER AREA
> ISRAEL - WEST BANK - JORDER*​
> ...


The State of Palestine never established borders by Treaty in the relative to Jordan, Israel or Egypt in the near three decades it has had since the proclamation of declaring Independence (1988).​
What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?


----------



## Shusha (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.  Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes.  The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control.  In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.



If we take out all the BS talk about containment areas (open air prisons), ethnic cleansing and genocide, Bantustans and apartheid, all of which is nonsense demonization of Israel, I actually more or less agree with the premise of your post here, Monte.  

Now the reason why Israel has not claimed this territory is that she, quite understandably, does not want to keep a hostile population under her sovereignty and that hostile population keeps saying (while acting to the contrary) that they want their own sovereignty.

One solution is for Israel to unilaterally abandon Areas A and B and Gaza and annex large portions of Area C.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.  Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes.  The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control.  In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.
> ...



What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?  What do you call areas patrolled by Israeli troops? I can't understand how you can possibly claim that the Occupied territories are any different than the Bantustans. 

Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them?  As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

I'm not at all sure if you're correct here!  But it is a very good question.



montelatici said:


> It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't believe this is a matter of any concern beyond that of the presumption of risk.  Countermeasures are incrementally increased as the imposition of the seriousness threshold in the threat elevates.  The question becomes is that risk something we can calculate accurately - which means we're assessing life and death risks that are ultimately imponderable.

Containment is one of the least intrusive countermeasures.  Today, there is a confrontation between Israeli Security and regional terrorist movements that must confront the radical ideology that justifies the use of violence against innocents in the name of religion.  Effective broad brush strokes at the sallow end of the effort to deny weapons to organizations and activities which seek to use them against throughout the region consistent with the threats they have made.

It is considerably more important to act in a responsible manner but denying organizations that have a history of coercion, kidnapping and murder, assaults and ambushes, and attacks on innocent civilians, among other things that fix the profile of a terrorist culture.   

It would be irresponsible for any country, having the capacity to quarantine such organization that have an established history of committing or inciting unlawful acts of violence, intimidates governments or or their citizens, in an effort to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.  The quarantine effort is to remove the opportunity and ability from such activities to do further harm. 

Anyone that has a relatively sophisticate computer anti-virus program know that once the harmful virus has been put in quarantine, it can remain their for the life of the computer.  The quarantine of  organizations and activities with such histories of past criminal behaviors and jihadist activities can be contained in a similar fashion.



montelatici said:


> Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes.  The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control.  In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, this constant attempt to associate the Palestinian terrorist activities and Islamic Resistance terrorist movements with the history of South Africa is becoming old and irrelevant.   The Palestinians are an insurgency ---  purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force; to achieve that which they could not achieve through political and diplomatic means a half century ago.

The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime anything other than the Chapter I, Article 2(4) territorial integrity or political independence established through the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, found in Article I(2) of the Charter.  

The Jewish Agency, following the UN General Assembly Recommendations as best they could, under constant attack by Hostile Arab Palestinians, formed a government and Declared Independence, to which the Arab League launch an immediate multi-national attack against.  Having successfully defended the State, form Arab Aggression, the Palestinians have since tried every conceivable approach to achieve their political agenda and jihadist objectives except "peaceful means."  It is not a matter of "ethnic Cleansing."  It is an attempt by powerful Arab interests, to defy the resolution of the General Assembly that set the conditions for independence and engaged in a deliberate effort jihadism, terrorism and insurgent measures to alter by force the outcome of the conflict from seven decades ago.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?



A sovereign nation?  Canada does just fine surrounded by the USofA.  Of course, the US doesn't shoot rockets at us. 



montelatici said:


> Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them?



Hey.  Here's a thought.  Why doesn't she keep them?  They will be the lucky ones.  



montelatici said:


> As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.



How about we make sure that Gaza has a border with Egypt.  And Palestine has a border with Jordan.  Problem solved.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I'm not at all sure if you're correct here!  But it is a very good question.
> 
> ...



1. "The Palestinians are an insurgency ---  purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force"

What were the ANC?

2.  "The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime ..."

Of course they are, only a fool with a severe case of cognizant dissonance would deny that the Israelis are systemically applying oppression and techniques of domination.

3. The European Zionists attacked the native inhabitants, committed genocide and ethnic cleansing to remove hundreds of thousand of the native inhabitants from the land they lived on.  The Arab neighbors rightfully attempted to prevent the Jewish war crimes as the British confirmed in recently de-classified intelligence from the period.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of *Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'....
After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun,* British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition *so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.
There is a real danger lest any *further Jewish provocation* may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, that is a mistake.  There was no real international borders as you suggest.
_(You ask this every other week.)_

The *Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, *also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.​It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.  

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders.  There were separation boundaries.    


P F Tinmore said:


> What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?


*(COMMENT)*

10/26/1994 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Article 3 --- *International Boundary A/50/73  S/1995/83 *Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Article 2 ---  *permanent boundary  **Egypt-Israel peace treaty* / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that is a mistake.  There was no real international borders as you suggest.
> _(You ask this every other week.)_
> ...


There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.​


The UN calls them international boundaries.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that is a mistake.  There was no real international borders as you suggest.
> _(You ask this every other week.)_
> ...


What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?
*(COMMENT)*

10/26/1994 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Article 3 --- *International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 *Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Article 2 --- *permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty* / "Camp David"​
Got nothing huh?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jan 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


The Palestinians HAD no borders.

They were a vacuum contained by the sea and within a series of borders defined for REAL nation-states.

They were a non-polity surrounded by REAL polities.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

The *African National Congress (ANC) *is of target here.  The Palestinians cannot fly on the laurels of a different organization fighting a completely different issue.



montelatici said:


> 1. "The Palestinians are an insurgency ---  purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force"
> 
> What were the ANC?
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Have you actually seen this document (Declassified UK reports ) you keep citing.  Having worked in the field, I can tell you that Classified Reports are not any more reliable, and sometime less reliable, then Unclassified Documents.  There are many diplomats and Intelligence Officers that are completely unreliable.

But if you have seen the reports, I would like the office symbol and date so I call it up from the archive.  I suspect that very few people have seen it, if it at all implies this 70 year old report.  I will say that by 1946, the Arabs of Palestine had already threatened to fight the Jewish.  And by May of 1947, the UN was calling for restraint in the use of threatening language.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You will have to show me a treaty to which you refer.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

I've showed you the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements* on the separation of territories under mandate.  I have also shown you the two principle treaties that are in effect today.  

I am having trouble with your elusive question.  What is it that you are asking.  

The UN does not call the international Boundaries, anything.  They don't write or sign treaties.  Treaties are legal arrangements between competent parties under the Vienna Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?
> ...



I think a sovereign nation has control over air space and territorial sea, does not have foreign troops patrolling its land and does not have walled citadels inhabited with armed foreign citizens.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Neither of the Islamic terrorist encampments of Gaza'istan or fatah'istan are sovereign nations or have made attempts at sovereignty. 

Israel has made the determination that controlling the Islamic terrorist encampment of Gaza is required to keep the islamic terrorists occupying that strip of land under control.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



"I think"...No, you don't.
But wait!  I have another Link to a superseded document for you!


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Are you really this stupid?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


The more superseded and/or irrelevant documents I read that you post, the stupider I'm getting.
It's been 5 minutes since you linked to a superseded document.
Isn't it time for ANOTHER superseded document link?


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Of course, source documentation is not acceptable to your kind.  Only Zionist propaganda will do.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Yes, that's why there's an out of proportion number of Jewish Attorneys on planet earth.


----------



## montelatici (Jan 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What does that mean?  That Jews are out of proportion liars?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



We lie all the time...just ask yourself;  you'll tell you.
We write the laws that keep people like you from hurting others when you feel excessively tough.


----------



## Shusha (Jan 12, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I think a sovereign nation has control over air space and territorial sea, does not have foreign troops patrolling its land and does not have walled citadels inhabited with armed foreign citizens.



Sovereign nations who live at peace with their neighbors do indeed have control over air space and territorial sea.  Sovereign nations who commit indiscriminate, illegal attacks on their neighbor's civilians not so much.  Once the attacks on Israel's innocent citizens stop, Palestine and Gaza too can have control over air space and territorial sea.  Didn't Boston say a year without hostilities was the marker?  You can start counting the 365 starting tomorrow.  

Israel will remove all her troops from Areas A and B.  So that isn't an issue.  

And the "walled citadels" will all become part of Israel.  So again, not an issue.  

There.  Did you have any other excuses for why Palestine and Gaza can't become sovereign states?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 12, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I think a sovereign nation has control over air space and territorial sea, does not have foreign troops patrolling its land and does not have walled citadels inhabited with armed foreign citizens.
> ...


There. Did you have any other excuses for why Palestine and Gaza can't become sovereign states?​
Besides a hundred years of military occupation and external interference? Nope, can't think of anything else.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


ISIS has no more an entitlement to declare itself a sovereign state than the Islamic terrorist enclaves in the disputed territories do.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 12, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

It is a good observation.  Maybe that might be an indication that the State of Palestine is not a real state.  That is a different discussion (I think).



montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, I do not think that Palestine has the capabilities necessary to have an Air Traffic Control Center or a typical Air Defense Zone.  Nor do the Palestinians have the necessary security arrangements for international commercial flights.  In fact, I'm not even sure that they have the knowledge, skills and abilities to properly apron mark the apron and set standard signs. 

As far as the conduct of Jihad, which constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, --- and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations , it may be necessary to extend the surveillance and controls to those national water of nations that support terrorist organizations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> It is a good observation.  Maybe that might be an indication that the State of Palestine is not a real state.  That is a different discussion (I think).
> 
> ...



Then there is no sovereignty.  You can't have it both ways.  

As far as the biggest threat to world peace, the Israelis win that one.

*EUROPEAN COMMISSON POLL: "ISRAEL IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE."*

EUROPEAN COMMISSON POLL: "ISRAEL IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE." - Simon Wiesenthal Center


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Indeed, they always need people to justify the shit they pull.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> It is a good observation.  Maybe that might be an indication that the State of Palestine is not a real state.  That is a different discussion (I think).
> 
> ...


Full of shit as usual. It is not the Palestinians. It is the assholes with all those mooched airplanes and missiles.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Ah, yes.  I thought that might draw fire.



P F Tinmore said:


> Full of shit as usual. It is not the Palestinians. It is the assholes with all those mooched airplanes and missiles.


*(REFERENCE)*
http://www.gaza-airport.org/techical.html#a12
When GAZ was operational, it was a very simple airport.
*LVGZ  Technical Information*

*(COMMENT)*

To have a small commuter airport (GAZ) is not quite the same thing is having an full service capacity or regional ATC.

I'm am not sure that GAZ was rebuilt.
The ZDM Ramallah Heliport is operational; and of course a Helipad in Jerusalem on Government Campus.
There is Qalandiya Airport (JRS), on the south-side of Ramallah, the last I heard was being rebuilt/rehabilitated by the Israelis.

But, while I haven't been anywhere in the ME since 2010, if memory serves me correctly, there is nothing in the Occupied Palestinians Territories that is comparable to Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON), or advanced traffic managements systems in their inventory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jan 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Ah, yes.  I thought that might draw fire.
> 
> ...


So?


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore, 

So!  ---  I was responding to your personal attack.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

You were suggesting I was wrong.   When in fact they do not have that capability.  They didn't have in 1946 and they don't have it now.

v/r
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Ah, yes.  I thought that might draw fire.
> 
> ...



It is quite simple to install a PSR (ASR) and an MSSR with an automation system in Gaza and  the West bank. (maybe only one MSSR in Gaza might do given the 250nm range of modern Mode-S MSSRs).  Flights can be routed over the sea from/to Gaza and through Jordanian air space from/to the WB, avoiding Israeli. air space or Israeli ATC altogether by changing the FIR boundaries in accordance with Palestinian sovereignty over their air space. Rocco, this is my business, watch yourself.


----------



## Challenger (Jan 13, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> I've seen the Middle East and the Muslim up close and personal. I don't have much faith in them. I certainly don't see and recent history that would lead me to believe that they are trustworthy. Look at every Arab State that surrounds Israel. Which one is the kind of state that you would want your kids to grow-up in?



So have I, and you'd be surprised, had you bothered to take off you western supremacist blinkers and get involved with the "average man on the street".  You say "the Muslim" as if it's some sort of derogatory word. From Agadir to Istanbul, I've never encountered any Muslim that didn't treat me, a white Englishman, with courtesy, respect, and generous hospitality.

As for trustworthy, "the West" has not exactly done much to engender "trust" in the ME over the last 100 years or so, nor is "the West" any more moraly superior, when looked at objectively.


----------



## Lipush (Jan 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



Europe should be a little more concerned about the massive rapists it already holds, before looking beyond its shores for foreign problems, to try and cover up its own.

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 13, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

I don't think I said that the installation of the necessary systems was not possible.  I don't think I said that traffic routing could not be accomplished.  I think I addressed three aspects:

The knowledge, skills and abilities of the Palestinian factions to come together and properly manage the systems.
The ability to fund and maintain the systems.
To comply with the international security cooperation in Air Transportation.
 Remember that the Palestinians cannot even assimilate a properly functioning government at the moment.  And that the HAMAS weaponizes damn near everything they get their hands on; especially in terms of technology.

BUT, I really did not want to go into the need or virtues of various Primary and Secondary Surveillance Systems or Enhanced/Dependent Surveillances.  Most people don't really care how it is done, it is more about what damage a hostile opponent might do with the access.



montelatici said:


> It is quite simple to install a PSR (ASR) and an MSSR with an automation system in Gaza and  the West bank. (maybe only one MSSR in Gaza might do given the 250nm range of modern Mode-S MSSRs).  Flights can be routed over the sea from/to Gaza and through Jordanian air space from/to the WB, avoiding Israeli. air space or Israeli ATC altogether by changing the FIR boundaries in accordance with Palestinian sovereignty over their air space. Rocco, this is my business, watch yourself.


*(COMMENT)*

I think that even the Arab League is a little concerned that to give the Arab Palestinians the reach and control in the air and sea will open a new wave of Palestinian Terrorism; and only further paint Arabs world-wide as supporters of terrorism.  

All the responsible governments of the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to improve the image of the Muslim World and the face of the 21st Century Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jan 13, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Now this is kind-of interesting.  I had to think about the implications of this.



montelatici said:


> Then there is no sovereignty.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> As far as the biggest threat to world peace, the Israelis win that one.


*(IMPLIED COMMENT)*

If it is accurate say that the Arab Palestinians have "NO SOVEREIGNTY" --- then what impact does that have?

*(TOPIC COMMENT)   "1967 Border"*

The State of Israel has a set of defined borders --- hard physical borders that it exercises sovereign control over.

Why should the State of Israel reward the Arab Palestinian for misbehavior; relinquishing territory it has controlled for nearly a half century?
*Chapter I --- Purpose and Principles, Article 2(3) UN Charter*

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."​
*(TOPIC COMMENT)   "End Occupation"*

To end the _status quo_ --- is a matter of trust and confidence.  To end the occupation, the State of Israel must be reasonably sure that it will NOT lose its sovereignty should the Arab community double-back upon them.

Trust is often considered essential; yet can be so very dangerous.  There is risk, and for that risk to be assumed, it must not be one-sided.  The Palestinians must assume an equal portion of the risk.

In the past, the Hostile Arab Palestinian has implied that they will not assume any risk or consequence on their part for offensive or aggressive action taken by them.  The entire concept that Israel MUST surrender the territory the HoAP and Associates lost since 1949, is the same as saying:

"The HoAP can attack Israel as often as it wants, and any territory lost as a consequence, must be returned to the HoAP.  Conversely --- any territory that the Israelis lose as a combat outcome is permanently forfeited to the HoAP."​In 2005, when the Israelis began the disengagement and withdrew from the Gaza Strip 12 September 2005.  Supposedly there was an internal Palestinian agreement was reached regarding a “lull in the fighting.” That agreement was never fully implemented and ended in January 2006.   During 2006 (after the withdrawal from Gaza, abductions and rocket fire from Gaza replaced suicide bombing as the dominant factor of the campaign against Israel.  HAMAS was developing a new campaign strategy to implement.  Iran openly 
provided generous financial aid Iran promised Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya made eleven visits to Tehran, which provided ≈ $250 million and aid for development projects.  There was no reason to believe that the HoAP was about to make any effort to recognize the positive step in the Israeli withdrawal.  

There is no reason to believe today that the HoAP will do anything other than launch greater and more devastating attacks on Israeli soft targets should Israel begin another unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank.  Such a withdrawal would significantly reduce the security buffer that Israel established to protect against the radicalize Islamic Resistance Movement and the Fedayeen of the Palestinian Authority.  

The impact, NO End to the Occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jan 13, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't think I said that the installation of the necessary systems was not possible.  I don't think I said that traffic routing could not be accomplished.  I think I addressed three aspects:
> 
> ...



The racists that supported Apartheid South Africa said much the same about the non-whites and their ability to manage operations such as ATC. That's how racists think.  The Palestinians have been among the least violent and patient of all the people that were colonized by the Europeans.  Need I remind you of the Mau Mau in Kenya or the FLN in Algeria. Resisting colonial oppression as the Palestinians are doing has nothing to do with terrorism.  This becomes abundantly clear after freedom has been achieved and the national heroes labeled as terrorists by the oppressors become national heroes.

Your problem is cognitive dissonance, that makes your mind unable to grasp the fact the Europeans of the Jewish went to Palestine to evict the native people and colonize the territory.  Once you get that through your thick skull, everything will become clear.


----------

