# Should Israel have been created?



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?


----------



## freeandfun1 (Nov 6, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWII the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



The choice was either put them there, or allow them to immigrate to the USA.  So yes, it was the right thing to do.  I would rather them be fighting for their lives over there than here.  If they had come here, the Muslims would be chasing them here.  There is no doubt about that and terrorist attacks would have started HERE way before 9-11.  Plus, historically, it was/is their homeland and that IS NOT debatable.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> The choice was either put them there, or allow them to immigrate to the USA.  So yes, it was the right thing to do.  I would rather them be fighting for their lives over there than here.  If they had come here, the Muslims would be chasing them here.  There is no doubt about that and terrorist attacks would have started HERE way before 9-11.  Plus, historically, it was/is their homeland and that IS NOT debatable.



It was certainly their homeland, but it was also other cultures homeland.  Under Ottoman rule, Jews and Muslim had a relatively high degree of tolerance compared to Europe.  I don't agree that the same animosty between Muslims and Jews would have existed without the presence of the state of Israel.

Of course the best solution would be that they could all exist peacefully like so many other cultures in the world, but pipe dreams are just that.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Nov 6, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> It was certainly their homeland, but it was also other cultures homeland.  Under Ottoman rule, Jews and Muslim had a relatively high degree of tolerance compared to Europe.  I don't agree that the same animosty between Muslims and Jews would have existed without the presence of the state of Israel.
> 
> Of course the best solution would be that they could all exist peacefully like so many other cultures in the world, but pipe dreams are just that.



ahhh, but the Jews were peacefully settled in the area of Israel when they were pushed from their homeland by Mohammed and his gang of thugs under HIS new religion.  So THEY started the entire thing.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> ahhh, but the Jews were peacefully settled in the area of Israel when they were pushed from their homeland by Mohammed and his gang of thugs under HIS new religion.  So THEY started the entire thing.



Agreed, but the Franks pushed out the pagan Celts.  Should we return France to Ireland or Scotland (haha okay bad example, i know what you'll say on that one?  Or return US and Canada to its native people.  Or most of Russia back to the Turkmen?

The reality is that history has a nasty problem with displacing conquered people.  So as gregarious, enlightened folk of the 20th and 21st century how do we mitigate history with the rightful homes of various people?

I'm afraid I don't have a very good answer to that.  Ideas?


----------



## ajwps (Nov 6, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWII the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



I've got a big surprise for you. The Jewish people did not get Israel by the good graces of the UN or the allied nations.

Israel established itself as a sovereign nation ALL BY ITSELF. 

The UN simply voted by a majority to approve of Israel's already established sovereign state. The very next day, 5 Arab armies attacked Israel armed with mostly a few Israeli's who had been in Israel for generations and mostly the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps.

Lo and behold, Israel had nothing but a few guns and one piper plane and yet they beat off the armies attacking them. 

When a country wins against 5 armies attacking them in order to kill all of its citizens, then that country that won the war waged against them finally and irrevocably owns the land by right of WINNING.

Sorry but all your wishes and desires to the opposite are to no avail and all the civilizations who have tried it for 3 thousand years have failed and will continue to fail.

Have a good day..


----------



## freeandfun1 (Nov 6, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Agreed, but the Franks pushed out the pagan Celts.  Should we return France to Ireland or Scotland (haha okay bad example, i know what you'll say on that one?  Or return US and Canada to its native people.  Or most of Russia back to the Turkmen?
> 
> The reality is that history has a nasty problem with displacing conquered people.  So as gregarious, enlightened folk of the 20th and 21st century how do we mitigate history with the rightful homes of various people?
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have a very good answer to that.  Ideas?



I understand what you are saying, but my point is that they have been fighting over the same land for centuries.  They (the Jews) have stayed in the area.  I think your examples are bad ones as the Jews did not leave the land.  There just never was a "state" as they, like native Americans, didn't believe in states.  None in that region did.  We (the west) formed SA, Jordan, Syria, etc., so why not give the Jews a state?  We gave all the Muslims states, so fair is fair in my book.


----------



## ajwps (Nov 6, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but my point is that they have been fighting over the same land for centuries.  They (the Jews) have stayed in the area.  I think your examples are bad ones as the Jews did not leave the land.  There just never was a "state" as they, like native Americans, didn't believe in states.  None in that region did.  We (the west) formed SA, Jordan, Syria, etc., so why not give the Jews a state?  We gave all the Muslims states, so fair is fair in my book.



Who are the 'THEY' that have been fighting over Israel for centuries?

When the Hebrews came into the land of Israel they fought and eliminated all the Canannites, Hittites, Philistines and all other idol worshiping and children sacrificing people who lived in Cannan.

Like you say, since that time, surrounding countries have waged wars against Israel, taken large portions of the Jewish people captive and tried to destroy the land. 

The answer lies in the fact that England belongs to the English, France belong the French, America belongs to the Americans and Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

Anyone who wants to take over England, France, Germany, Israel or America for themselves will have to win the land in a war wagaed against these peoples.

No other country or land can give away another people's land to those who don't want anything but death of the inhabitants of that country.

Bush is slowly learning this fact and Sharon will learn it the hard way.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> I've got a big surprise for you. The Jewish people did not get Israel by the good graces of the UN or the allied nations.
> 
> Israel established itself as a sovereign nation ALL BY ITSELF.
> 
> ...



I was under the impression that Creation of Israel was apart of the Franco-British Sykes Picot/Balfour agreement?  As i understand, after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWII the British suggested Jews immigrate back to their homeland as thanks for their aid in over-running the Ottomans.  Under an agreement, the Jews settle 25% of the British Mandated Palestine and gave the other 75%, Trans-Jordan to ther current "Palestinian" occupants.

I understood that a UN resolution in 1947 allowed the partition of British mandated Palestine which wasn't supported by Arab nations and that Israel declared independence according to the passed UN resolution.

Sometime I just wonder for the Jewish people whether or not they would have been better off and more secure living in various countries post-WWII.  Of course, I am not Jewish and cannot answer that.


----------



## NATO AIR (Nov 6, 2004)

Issac, AJ is like the Jewish William Joyce, he's way out there and quick to condemn you without making much sense.  Free&fun is actually coherent, fair and pretty knowledgeable with sources and decent opinions.  trying to debate with AJ is near impossible.  he'll just label you an anti-semite and run around like his heads cut off about israel, sharon being evil, america hating israel, etc etc.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> Issac, AJ is like the Jewish William Joyce, he's way out there and quick to condemn you without making much sense.  Free&fun is actually coherent, fair and pretty knowledgeable with sources and decent opinions.  trying to debate with AJ is near impossible.  he'll just label you an anti-semite and run around like his heads cut off about israel, sharon being evil, america hating israel, etc etc.



Absolutely no worries.  I'm completely open to ideas on both sides of the issue.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure myself what I think on this issue and was actually hoping to hear arguments on both sides.  I know the question doesn't change anything in the present, but I thought it was an interesting thought experiment at the very least.

FF's was a good one for sure.  AJ has a perfect right to express his views, though, like you said, I wish he did without believing i'm out there to exterminate the Jewish race.  

What's your thoughts?


----------



## NATO AIR (Nov 6, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Absolutely no worries.  I'm completely open to ideas on both sides of the issue.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure myself what I think on this issue and was actually hoping to hear arguments on both sides.  I know the question doesn't change anything in the present, but I thought it was an interesting thought experiment at the very least.
> 
> FF's was a good one for sure.  AJ has a perfect right to express his views, though, like you said, I wish he did without believing i'm out there to exterminate the Jewish race.
> 
> What's your thoughts?



Israel's creation created Pandora's box in the already backwards Middle East.  In addition, if Israel gets a state, why not the Kurds? the Tibetans? countless other oppressed and margainalized minorities?

I take all the Bible/Koran/Torah stuff with a huge grain of salt so I'm not into "that's their chosen land" or any of the stuff like that, so I guess that's why my view is quite different from that of others.

For me, no, the state of Israel did not deserve to be created.  As it is now though, I do believe in and support the state of Israel.  I just wish the settler elements would shut up and move out.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Nov 6, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> Israel's creation created Pandora's box in the already backwards Middle East.  In addition, if Israel gets a state, why not the Kurds? the Tibetans? countless other oppressed and margainalized minorities?
> 
> I take all the Bible/Koran/Torah stuff with a huge grain of salt so I'm not into "that's their chosen land" or any of the stuff like that, so I guess that's why my view is quite different from that of others.
> 
> For me, no, the state of Israel did not deserve to be created.  As it is now though, I do believe in and support the state of Israel.  I just wish the settler elements would shut up and move out.



I fully understand your position, but then what about Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.?  Did they have a right to be formed?  Were we right to sit by as they either exterminated or deported the jews that lived in those lands?  Without the formation of Israel, I would say the formation of those predominately Islamic states was wrong too.


----------



## NATO AIR (Nov 6, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I fully understand your position, but then what about Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.?  Did they have a right to be formed?  Were we right to sit by as they either exterminated or deported the jews that lived in those lands?  Without the formation of Israel, I would say the formation of those predominately Islamic states was wrong too.



true.

i see it like this, europe FUCKED us with the way they divied up nations in the 20th century.  there are so many countries that shouldn't be countries right now it isn't funny (nigeria, the congo, etc etc).  now we're stuck with the mistakes a bunch of inbred idiots made.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Nov 6, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> true.
> 
> i see it like this, europe FUCKED us with the way they divied up nations in the 20th century.  there are so many countries that shouldn't be countries right now it isn't funny (nigeria, the congo, etc etc).  now we're stuck with the mistakes a bunch of inbred idiots made.



On that point, we are in total agreement!


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 6, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but my point is that they have been fighting over the same land for centuries.  They (the Jews) have stayed in the area.  I think your examples are bad ones as the Jews did not leave the land.  There just never was a "state" as they, like native Americans, didn't believe in states.  None in that region did.  We (the west) formed SA, Jordan, Syria, etc., so why not give the Jews a state?  We gave all the Muslims states, so fair is fair in my book.



You do make a good point.  Though Jews did leave the land othen in that period either on their own accord (though more often that not due to persecution) or were forceable coerced which I don't think make them a unique entity in the grand historical context.

I agree that if Europe quit playing Nation-maker around the world in the 19th and 20th century, much of the problems could be avoided.  Interestingly, the Arab nations proposed a unified Palestine with dual Arab and Jewish parliaments.  I wonder if it was that "this is your land Arabs and this is your land Jews" idea that caused the source for much of the problems.

Your point on creation of Muslim states, so why not Israel is well taken.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 10, 2004)

I always thought that the Ottoman Empire ended during WW1 ... "In 1922, Ottoman rule officially came to an end when Turkey was declared a republic"
( http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/EUROPE.HTM ).

As for the Jews coming to Israel after WW2, that was just the latest wave.  There have always been Jews in Israel ... lots of them.  In fact, the population until the 20th century was so sparce that the Jews actually made up the majority of several large cities like Acho.  They where Ottoman Jews and the neighbors where Ottoman Arabs.  It was all hunky dory except that the Jews enjoyed minimal legal protection (insert jewish lawyer joke here), but the Arabs where OK with it because they where all Ottoman Arabs and the Jews didn't actually rule.

With the continued persecution of Jews across Europe from West to East many Jews began emigrating to Israel until the late 19th Century when the pogroms in Russia and Poland got so bad that the Jews had almost no choice but to go to Israel or the US.  At that point Israel was still full of swamps and generally inhospitable.  Many of these Jews (chalutsim = pioneers) died from malaria drying these swamps with Eucaliptus trees (they drink a lot of water).  It is during this time that Hertzel and the World Zionist Organization began to opperate. So it's not like the Arabs really payed much attention to the land before they noticed a lot of Jews continuing to emigrate.

By the end of WW1 the British had promissed everything to everyone (the French aren't off the hook on this charge either).  It was general mayhem in the territory.  The Arabs refused to conceed any land despite the de facto Jewish state.  All the Jews wanted was the British out because they felt that they where impeding the creation of this state.  When the Arabs cried about the boatloads of Jews coming in after WW2, and the British blocked them entry, it was the last straw.  The Jews started blowing crap up too .. like the King David Hotel (they called the hotel before the blast and told them there is a bomb in the building).  The British wanted out, drew some squigly lines on the map, split the land, and where in London by tea.

So the land was never without Jews.  And that biblical crap that you are talking about isn't 100% true, but it's not 100% off either.  I'm a Cohen.  Unless some guys got together and played a huge prank, i can trace my lineage, father to son, all the way to Aron, Moses' brother.  And even if you don't believe that, understand this ... At every Jewish wedding we break a glass to remember the destruction of the temple and the desire to return.  The very last prayer of the holiest day, Yom Kippur (which the Arab cowards desecrated with a sneak attack) ends with this prayer .. "Bashana ha'ba'ah biyerushalayim" ... Next year in Jerusalem.  This may be so much crap to you, but that is because you have never been in my shoes.

I believe that the Kurds should have their own country.  as should the Tibetens etc.  If you are a people with your own culture and language, preferabely, than you should be abl;e to call your motherland your state.  How lucky for you that you already have your own country.  I will not be denide mine, and I don't give a rat's ass about the UN and their insane condemnations.  I didn't need that league of nations then, and I think the US and Israel should both ceceed now.

Any thought on cecetion from the UN ?!  We could use the real estate.


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 12, 2004)

http://www.palestinehistory.com/time1900.htm

i like this site....as it is the most even handed one i have found for time line facts


----------



## drac (Nov 12, 2004)

"Should israel have been created?"... I find this question very .... "strange".
Should usa, france, germany.... have been created? Who are 'you' (general you here, not specific at brock) to ask it or decide?

The best chance any group of people united by the same culture, language, customs... have is to live in the independent country of their own. Especially if those people are prosecuted, their rights are denied by others and they are treated as second class citizen. Very very "strange" question.

(and do not reply with retoric about palestians, because i believe that palestians, kurds... should have their own country)


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 12, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> "Should israel have been created?"... I find this question very .... "strange".
> Should usa, france, germany.... have been created? Who are 'you' (general you here, not specific at brock) to ask it or decide?
> 
> The best chance any group of people united by the same culture, language, customs... have is to live in the independent country of their own. Especially if those people are prosecuted, their rights are denied by others and they are treated as second class citizen. Very very "strange" question.
> ...



I want to make it clear that the question was not meant to offend or disparage the Jewish or Arab people.  I just never found the situation to be clear cut.  While the point was given that other nationalities have homelands, the point is that not all nationalities have homelands.  The Irani (not to be confused with Iranian), Basque, Kurds, Sami, Native American/Inuit, Cossack, Turkmen are all very distinct nationalities, most who have been,unfortunately, oppressed sometime in history.

It's not question of whether they deserve a homeland, it's a question if the Jews would have been better off remaining a cultural entity as they existed before.  Of course, I ask this with the benefit of hindsight.  

Consider if we had created Kurdistan at the same time as Israel.  The Arabs of Iraq, Turks and Sunnis from Iran from the region would have most likely gone to war to press their claims on that territory as well.  It's always a tricky situation to cede land where other populations are present to create new countries.


----------



## drac (Nov 13, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I want to make it clear that the question was not meant to offend or disparage the Jewish or Arab people.  I just never found the situation to be clear cut.  While the point was given that other nationalities have homelands, the point is that not all nationalities have homelands.  The Irani (not to be confused with Iranian), Basque, Kurds, Sami, Native American/Inuit, Cossack, Turkmen are all very distinct nationalities, most who have been,unfortunately, oppressed sometime in history.


It is not about being offended or disparage, i did not take it that way. It is about who is it to decide if one group of people (meeting some requirements) should have an idependent state. (btw turkmen do have they own state.)


> It's not question of whether they deserve a homeland, it's a question if the Jews would have been better off remaining a cultural entity as they existed before.  Of course, I ask this with the benefit of hindsight.


That is a problem, they were not allowed to remain/retain a cultural identity by being members of various state. So in order to remain jewish and frankly to survive they needed a separate state. 



> Consider if we had created Kurdistan at the same time as Israel.  The Arabs of Iraq, Turks and Sunnis from Iran from the region would have most likely gone to war to press their claims on that territory as well.  It's always a tricky situation to cede land where other populations are present to create new countries.


Yes it is a tricky situation, but it is not a 'showstoper'. There are number of solutions for it (india/pakistan) The threat of others to declare war on the newly created state should not serve as a stop to the national independence of suppressed.


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 13, 2004)

the american indians don't have a homeland


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 13, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWII the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



Intersting proposal ! After some thinking I have come to the conclusion that had the UN and British not partitioned the mideast, it would have been only a matter of time before the Jews claimed it anyway because of their religious beliefs. It would have been contested by the Arabs also and the same basic battles would have ensued. The British and UN mandates merely gave the Jews an "earthly deed" to a land that they always considerered to be theirs by religious prophecy. If Mecca and Medina were to be taken over by a non-arab country, muslims too would fight for the return of what thier religion told them was rightfully theirs.
This becomes an inevitable problem when adherents to a religion feel entitled and dependent on a plot of land for their salvation. Many Chistians also believe that their salvation is somehow tied up in future events in the mideast hence they tend to support the Jewish efforts because in many ways they are one in the same.
I'm glad my spiritualty is not dependent on a plot of land being in the possession of "my" people".


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 13, 2004)

Hey Manu ... Ever been to Foxwoods ?!


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 13, 2004)

I don't think that anyone is offended.  This is a good question and one that we all seem to be able to handle maturely.  No worries mate


----------



## drac (Nov 14, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Intersting proposal ! After some thinking I have come to the conclusion that had the UN and British not partitioned the mideast, it would have been only a matter of time before the Jews claimed it anyway because of their religious beliefs. It would have been contested by the Arabs also and the same basic battles would have ensued. The British and UN mandates merely gave the Jews an "earthly deed" to a land that they always considerered to be theirs by religious prophecy. If Mecca and Medina were to be taken over by a non-arab country, muslims too would fight for the return of what thier religion told them was rightfully theirs.
> This becomes an inevitable problem when adherents to a religion feel entitled and dependent on a plot of land for their salvation. Many Chistians also believe that their salvation is somehow tied up in future events in the mideast hence they tend to support the Jewish efforts because in many ways they are one in the same.
> I'm glad my spiritualty is not dependent on a plot of land being in the possession of "my" people".


Why is it always seems to be connected only to religion? Jews have connection to the land due to history as well as religion. I would even argue that it is stronger connection. Connection to one's roots and history, to place where it is all started, where identity of being jewish was born. Does it have relgious connection/meaning? Of cause, but to consider it to be the major one and/or only one reason is a big mistake imho. 
Why french, germans, arabs.. live in the area they are? Because of the history. Dening it to jews is a mistake.

Let me ask you dillo. Taking the religous reasons away. Where should jewish people have a country? If you are in charge, where o mighty Dillo can jews have a homeland?


----------



## Isaac Brock (Nov 14, 2004)

drac said:
			
		

> Why is it always seems to be connected only to religion? Jews have connection to the land due to history as well as religion. I would even argue that it is stronger connection. Connection to one's roots and history, to place where it is all started, where identity of being jewish was born. Does it have relgious connection/meaning? Of cause, but to consider it to be the major one and/or only one reason is a big mistake imho.
> Why french, germans, arabs.. live in the area they are? Because of the history. Dening it to jews is a mistake.
> 
> Let me ask you dillo. Taking the religous reasons away. Where should jewish people have a country? If you are in charge, where o mighty Dillo can jews have a homeland?



I think the point that is made is that countries are where they are now, not because of moral ground, but founded on blood and iron of war.

France exists because Charlemagne kicked out various tribes and by receeiving English claims through the Hundred Years War.

Germany exists because the Germanic tribes kicked out the Romans.  The unification of Germany came about through the diplomatic and military annexation of German minors by Prussia.

US beat the the Indians and British.

Russia beat, well, you name it.`

Etc, etc.

With the exception of the colonial independance movements of the 20th century and Canada, most country and people are where they are now through shear military conquest, not because they deserved it.  It's a grim thought, but indeed that was the way realpolitik manefested itself.

I supposed one could argue that Jews "re-conquered" their land through aiding the Allies in fighting the Ottomans... I'm not so sure that it was a much that as it was the Allies ceding the territory.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 16, 2004)

Isaac, It is interesting that you bring up this point of backing the allies.  I have really never met a people who pick losers as well as the Palestinian leadership.  Between backing Hitler and Husein (Twice), it baffles me why the international community gives a dime to the PA.  Bying off people so that they won't hate you and blow crap up really doesn't work when all the money is skimmed at the top and a bare minimum reaches the pissed off people on the street.  Everyone knows that they dance in the streets in celebration of non-Moslems' death.  I can't be the only one to have seen the videos.  Yet we still try to buy them off.  The world community is acting like a rich kid who would rather pay off the schoolyard bully than stand for what's right ... until he finally got punched in the nose and now has to do something.  Let's grow some nuts and tell the Muslem world what they can do with their planet annexing selves .. as soon as we find a replacement for fossil fuel.


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that Creation of Israel was apart of the Franco-British Sykes Picot/Balfour agreement?  As i understand, after the defeat of the Ottomans in WWII the British suggested Jews immigrate back to their homeland as thanks for their aid in over-running the Ottomans.  Under an agreement, the Jews settle 25% of the British Mandated Palestine and gave the other 75%, Trans-Jordan to ther current "Palestinian" occupants.
> 
> I understood that a UN resolution in 1947 allowed the partition of British mandated Palestine which wasn't supported by Arab nations and that Israel declared independence according to the passed UN resolution.
> 
> Sometime I just wonder for the Jewish people whether or not they would have been better off and more secure living in various countries post-WWII.  Of course, I am not Jewish and cannot answer that.



Actually Israel had already been a state before the UN Partition vote.

For most Jews, the existence of the state was already a fait accompli. Theodor Herzl, the late-19th century founding visionary of modern Jewish nationalism, had willed it so at the First Zionist Congress, in Basel, Switzerland in 1897 and in 1917, the Balfour Declaration confirmed the right of the Jewish people to a national homeland in Israel Palestine. But for the world, the State of Israel came into being on November 29, 1947, the day the United Nations General Assembly passed the Partition Plan by a two-thirds majority vote. Throngs of people filled the streets in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa and in settlements throughout the yishuv with euphoric singing and dancing. The Jews were to be granted their own state, albeit small, and the British mandatory officials were to depart by August 1, 1948.

The next day 5 Arab armies attacked the State of Israel and the Arabs lost against the 3 thousand year old Israel.

Possession of a land constitutes 100% ownership of the land until someone wishes to take it away by war. 

No the Jewish people would not have been better served by living in other people's lands instead of retaining their own eon long land. History teaches lessons and the Jews have at times been welcomed in all lands around the world but eventually they are expelled or killed when these countries came into bad times. It was always easier to blame their Jewish citizens. Hitler demosntrated that no country was willing to take Europes Jews so more than six million were gassed and cremated for being born into a harmless religion. Very nice.

If I wish to take the United States or France for my country, I will have to attack these countries with my armies and make me the owner of these lands.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Nov 21, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> Actually Israel had already been a state before the UN Partition vote.
> 
> For most Jews, the existence of the state was already a fait accompli. Theodor Herzl, the late-19th century founding visionary of modern Jewish nationalism, had willed it so at the First Zionist Congress, in Basel, Switzerland in 1897 and in 1917, the Balfour Declaration confirmed the right of the Jewish people to a national homeland in Israel Palestine. But for the world, the State of Israel came into being on November 29, 1947, the day the United Nations General Assembly passed the Partition Plan by a two-thirds majority vote. Throngs of people filled the streets in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa and in settlements throughout the yishuv with euphoric singing and dancing. The Jews were to be granted their own state, albeit small, and the British mandatory officials were to depart by August 1, 1948.
> 
> ...



To paraphrase aj's comments:"Bring it on!"


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> To paraphrase aj's comments:"Bring it on!"



Good paraphrasing. The question is not whether IT will be brought-on but more accurately WHEN Israel will be attacked.

The response to such an attack by any nation or group of nations will be a very big surprise to any who try to bring it on.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 21, 2004)

I agree with some of what you say but there is one thing that brings up a problem.  Islam is marching it's armies all over the world.  Like in Sudan.  Just because Islam rapes and kills the black African inhabitants, doesn't meen that this is morally correct.  It should be stopped at all costs.  The difference is that Jews have always been in Israel and the diaspora has always prayed to return to Israel.  This has never changed.


----------



## nbdysfu (Nov 21, 2004)

DaTroof said:
			
		

> I agree with some of what you say but there is one thing that brings up a problem.  Islam is marching it's armies all over the world.  Like in Sudan.  Just because Islam rapes and kills the black African inhabitants, doesn't meen that this is morally correct.  It should be stopped at all costs.  The difference is that Jews have always been in Israel and the diaspora has always prayed to return to Israel.  This has never changed.



Big difference: Sudanese Islamists are raping and murdering innocent people. Isreali army targets specific individuals who have murdered innocent people.


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

DaTroof said:
			
		

> I agree with some of what you say but there is one thing that brings up a problem.  Islam is marching it's armies all over the world.  Like in Sudan.  Just because Islam rapes and kills the black African inhabitants, doesn't meen that this is morally correct.  It should be stopped at all costs.  The difference is that Jews have always been in Israel and the diaspora has always prayed to return to Israel.  This has never changed.



There are a few flaws in your statements. Islam is not marching its armies all over the world. Islam is made up of competing subgroups based not only on the two claimants to Prophet Muhammad's role as leader of Islam (the Sunni and Shiite) groups but also into individual fiefdoms where each Muslim cleric or Mullah fights each other for dominance. Much like primal wolf packs.

All Islam hates the Jewish people and the west for the Islamic world power status has been stalemated into a 4th century civilization with their last glory during the time of Saladin. This fact is their only unifying focus on hate, murder and rape. The Sudan's Muslims is a local fiefdom that has a Qur'anic commandment to kill the black Africans and take their lives and lands based on the law of the beast. Much like the Malasian, Afghan and Pakistan Muslims do to their non-Muslim neighbors.

There is no way of stopping Islam's multi-individual destruction subgroups without destroying the only central portal they all have to paradise. This portal is Mecca and its Kabah where Islam believes the right hand of Allah resides in a black-rock.   

Jews (in the diaspora) exist in just about every country in the world with only one haven to return to when any country decides its time to expel or murder their Jewish populations. 

Israel and the Jews will certainly pay a very high price because of their apostasy but in the end the land will be retained by the remnant of the Jewish people. There are only different free choice paths to the end which has been decided long long ago.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 21, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> There are a few flaws in your statements. Islam is not marching its armies all over the world. Islam is made up of competing subgroups based not only on the two claimants to Prophet Muhammad's role as leader of Islam (the Sunni and Shiite) groups but also into individual fiefdoms where each Muslim cleric or Mullah fights each other for dominance. Much like primal wolf packs.
> 
> All Islam hates the Jewish people and the west for the Islamic world power status has been stalemated into a 4th century civilization with their last glory during the time of Saladin. This fact is their only unifying focus on hate, murder and rape. The Sudan's Muslims is a local fiefdom that has a Qur'anic commandment to kill the black Africans and take their lives and lands based on the law of the beast. Much like the Malasian, Afghan and Pakistan Muslims do to their non-Muslim neighbors.
> 
> ...




Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at? Maybe some people are mad at jews because they expect to be able to " go home" when things get bad. I don't think anyone else has this do they?


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at? Maybe some people are mad at jews because they expect to be able to " go home" when things get bad.



So some 'people' are mad at (hate) Jews because they also have a country of their own? What neuron did you use to come up with this muse of yours? 



> I don't think anyone else has this do they?



Can you name just one group, people or religion that does not have a country of origin beside the Jewish people which now have Israel to escape to in times of peril?


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 21, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> So some 'people' are mad at (hate) Jews because they also have a country of their own? What neuron did you use to come up with this muse of yours?
> name calling mood I see
> 
> 
> Can you name just one group, people or religion that does not have a country of origin beside the Jewish people which now have Israel to escape to in times of peril?



I'm an American and it is my country of origin----where do I go when I am persecuted ?
( I mean damn---I get put down by jews in America ,ya know ? )


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> So some 'people' are mad at (hate) Jews because they also have a country of their own? What neuron did you use to come up with this muse of yours?


 
*name calling mood I see*

Sorry, exactly what name did I call you? 



> I'm an American and it is my country of origin----where do I go when I am persecuted ?



If you lived in Paris or Kurdistan or anywhere else, you would always be able to return to your USA country of origin. 

If Jews persecute, kill or expel Jews in Israel then they call that a civil war. The same for you in America.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 21, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> *name calling mood I see*
> 
> Sorry, exactly what name did I call you?
> 
> ...



You are unable to see the manner in which you insulted me?  

I live in America----If I am persecuted here , where do I go to find sanctuary?


----------



## ajwps (Nov 21, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You are unable to see the manner in which you insulted me? *" Maybe some people are mad at jews because they expect to be able to " go home" when things get bad.*"



Your statement not only did not make any sense but you made a very racist remark which takes no thought in its structure. The remark that you must have used only one neuron was not name calling or insulting but simply  indicated you were not using your brain.



> I live in America----If I am persecuted here , where do I go to find sanctuary?



Another non-thought statement! As a majority in your own country you can vote out the government which persecutes you. As a very small minority religion in the USA, persecution (like in the case of the Japanese population in WW2 or the Branch Dividians in Waco Texas) you either get killed by the authorities like the Davidians, Ruby Ridge or put in camps like the WW2 Japanese.

If you feel persecuted you can return to your country of origin like Ireland, England, Germany or from wherever your ancestors left to come to America.      

In the case of the Jewish person, where do you go if not Israel? As you see Europe, Asia and most of the world has already decided that Jews are the scapegoat devils of the earth.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 22, 2004)

Posted by Dilloduck
"Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at?"

Are Jews the only people with a land of their own ?  What do you think surrounds Isarel ?!  Arab land.  Thousands of square miles of it.  That is where an Arab goes if he wants.  The Swedes have Sweden, Russians have Russia, and the Jews have Israel.    You look at Judaism and see a religion I'm begining to believe.  It's a religion, a nationality, and a culture.  But even if it is just a religion, what do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are (or for that matter most Arab countries) ?!  They are Muslem theological dictatorships.  So everybody has there own country and other Religions keep lands where there's is the only religion.  So why are you so mad at the Jews again ?!

The Palestinians have "run-out" of places to go.  Yet there they are.  Jordan doesn't want them and neither does Egypt.  Why is that ?!  It's because Palestinians are notorious troublemakers .. even by Arab standards.  More importantly, I believe that the pictures that you are shown, of how Arabs live in the territories is behind this mindset that the Jew is the opressor.  sad truth is that these slums exist in all Arab countries.  Most a lot worse.  It's the Arab mentality that the individual meens nothing while Allah hoo akbar.  IT IS NOT ISRAEL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX PALESTINIAN MISTAKES.  Why don't YOU go into the territories and help.  I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open harms.  Point being that the Palestinians (pronounced "Arabs") can go anywhere they want in the Arab and Muslim world (most are both), where it not for the fact that they have become a socio-political persona non-grata.  Once again, not Israel's fault.

And I ask of you again.  What are you advocating that Israel should do ?!  I am getting a gut feeling that you want a 1 stae 2 people solution.  Am I way off ?!


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 22, 2004)

DaTroof said:
			
		

> Posted by Dilloduck
> "Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at?"
> 
> Are Jews the only people with a land of their own ?  What do you think surrounds Isarel ?!  Arab land.  Thousands of square miles of it.  That is where an Arab goes if he wants.  The Swedes have Sweden, Russians have Russia, and the Jews have Israel.    You look at Judaism and see a religion I'm begining to believe.  It's a religion, a nationality, and a culture.  But even if it is just a religion, what do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are (or for that matter most Arab countries) ?!  They are Muslem theological dictatorships.  So everybody has there own country and other Religions keep lands where there's is the only religion.  So why are you so mad at the Jews again ?!
> ...




I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?") I disagree with ideas that some jewish people have. I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults but he's sorta like bully after awhile--you just ignore it. I have consistantly tried to engage in honest debate on the board as to solutions for the mid-east and my point remains--if there is to be peace, both parities will have to be responsible for it happening. No one cares whose "fault" it is any more and I personally am tired of the world expecting the US to solve it.
Guess what?-----THE US OWNS NONE OF IT !

My point on this issue is merely that it appears as though jews want to live in peace in every country in the world but if things get bad, they want a country to go hide in. If I am an oppressed minority in America where do I hide. I have no other country that I call home !  Do you encourage blacks to return to Africa if they are discriminated against ? I think not.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm not shouting anti-Semite. I am asking you why you insist that it's Israel who is not doing it's part ?!  First off, Israel has repeatedly refused US intervention as a peace keeping force.  It would be like Lebanon, so no thanks.  What is it that Israel is doing so wrong ?!  Israel should let buses blow up ?!  If the answer is "no", than what should Israel do ?!

As for places to go ... Israel is a Jewish state.  It's not like you couldn't live there and even become a citizen if you pleased.  We have lots of Somalians where I live.  They live here but have family in Somalia.  What's the difference between them and Israel again ?!

I want to make 1 thing really clear.  Israel is like any other nation.  It will not allow your interests, namely quieting the Muslem hordes, to affect it's security.  You are not an anti-semite, you are an appeaser.  The Jews should live all over the world but should never have their own state because it enfuriates the racist Arab masses.

Also, you still haven't told us what you advocate should be done !!!


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 23, 2004)

You do realize that you contradict yourself all the time Dillo.  Clear example ..
"I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?")"  and a sentence later you write "I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults".  So which is it.  You are angry at Jews or not ?!?  I have also never said that you are "angry" with Jews, so the whole calling you anti-semitic is way off.  You are quite biased, but so am I.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 23, 2004)

DaTroof said:
			
		

> You do realize that you contradict yourself all the time Dillo.  Clear example ..
> "I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?")"  and a sentence later you write "I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults".  So which is it.  You are angry at Jews or not ?!?  I have also never said that you are "angry" with Jews, so the whole calling you anti-semitic is way off.  You are quite biased, but so am I.



sorry--I should have said " If I were angry at jews,I could justify it by AJ and his corny insults". I just honestly disagree with the opinion of some jews. You have to admit it's tough to do that without the bigot stuff popping up.
(contradict myself "all the time " ???--I think not)


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 23, 2004)

Alright .. not all the time.  And, yes, even I have disagreed with AJ on many a point.  When you get 2 Jews together you end up w/3 opinions.  The one thing I am really sensitive to is the notion that Israel is somehow halting this peace process.  Israel has given back the Saini.  It has negotiated peace with Jordan.  It didn't drive out all the Arab poulation in 1967, even though the world wouldn't have blinked an eye if it did.  For once I'd like you to say "Israel has really restrained itself considering the military disproportionality.  Maybe the Palestinians should stop teaching their children lies about how the situation came to be as it is, and accept some internal responsibility.  Maybe they should accept that Israel is building this wall because of their continued refusal to support moderate leaders within their ranks."  Have you ever heard of the victor begging for peace.  Many people sound like this is what Israel must strive for ... coexistance.  I suggest that seperation is a more viable option.  At least for now.  Israel doesn't need to appease the Palestinians.  Their motives are so opaque that it's like a writting on the wall.  I think that the idea of Israel being on the front line of a cultural clash has been lost on you.  Let me make it easy for you ... Why was Margaret Hassan murdered ?!  Islam !!!  Pure and simple.  This is a war of cultures and morals.  A Western woman aiding Muslems is unacceptable to fundemental Islam.  Non-Muslems are to be subserviant to Muslems.

You still haven't said what you are advocating ?!  Do you see a beautiful land with 2 peoples living as brothers with mutual respect ?!  I am dying to know, so please do clue me in.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 23, 2004)

DaTroof said:
			
		

> Alright .. not all the time.  And, yes, even I have disagreed with AJ on many a point.  When you get 2 Jews together you end up w/3 opinions.  The one thing I am really sensitive to is the notion that Israel is somehow halting this peace process.  Israel has given back the Saini.  It has negotiated peace with Jordan.  It didn't drive out all the Arab poulation in 1967, even though the world wouldn't have blinked an eye if it did.  For once I'd like you to say "Israel has really restrained itself considering the military disproportionality.  Maybe the Palestinians should stop teaching their children lies about how the situation came to be as it is, and accept some internal responsibility.  Maybe they should accept that Israel is building this wall because of their continued refusal to support moderate leaders within their ranks."  Have you ever heard of the victor begging for peace.  Many people sound like this is what Israel must strive for ... coexistance.  I suggest that seperation is a more viable option.  At least for now.  Israel doesn't need to appease the Palestinians.  Their motives are so opaque that it's like a writting on the wall.  I think that the idea of Israel being on the front line of a cultural clash has been lost on you.  Let me make it easy for you ... Why was Margaret Hassan murdered ?!  Islam !!!  Pure and simple.  This is a war of cultures and morals.  A Western woman aiding Muslems is unacceptable to fundemental Islam.  Non-Muslems are to be subserviant to Muslems.
> 
> You still haven't said what you are advocating ?!  Do you see a beautiful land with 2 peoples living as brothers with mutual respect ?!  I am dying to know, so please do clue me in.



I can appreciate your sensitivity when you are accused of blocking peaceful solutions and do feel as tho Israel has operated with restraint in many areas.  I am confused by the messages that come out of Israel so I assume others are too. Some Israelis want coexistance--some want separation and some want an all out war against their Muslim neighbors.
What I want as a solution here is unimportant as it is Israel and its' Mulsim neighbors are those who must live with the outcome. I advocate that Israel come up with a firm proposal and stick with it ! Whether it be all out war, coexistance or separation. Pick what it is that you will be satisfied with and is realistic and work toward those ends. Whichever way you decide to go will not please everyone.


----------



## DaTroof (Nov 23, 2004)

If it where up to me I'd choose seperation.  I believe that those are the steps that are now seriously being undertaken.  A wall. Unilateral withdrawl.  I think Sharon and enough Israelis to keep him in office want seperation.  They are understandabely tired of the stonewalling and complaining and the death.  Enough is enough.


----------



## ajwps (Nov 24, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> sorry--I should have said " If I were angry at jews,I could justify it by AJ and his corny insults". I just honestly disagree with the opinion of some jews. You have to admit it's tough to do that without the bigot stuff popping up.
> (contradict myself "all the time " ???--I think not)



You say that you 'honestly' disagree with the opinions of SOME Jews like AJ and his corny insults?

You have every right to disagree with anyone you choose but you do not have a right to speak for the American people. You alone do not make a majority opinion of America or the world concerning Israel.

I say that you are neither a bigot nor an anti-semite.  It is my opinion that you base your assertions on flaud and irrelevant conclusions formed in your cranium.

And I am also entitled to my own opinions.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 24, 2004)

ajwps said:
			
		

> You say that you 'honestly' disagree with the opinions of SOME Jews like AJ and his corny insults?
> 
> You have every right to disagree with anyone you choose but you do not have a right to speak for the American people. You alone do not make a majority opinion of America or the world concerning Israel.
> 
> ...


 Opine away my jewish buddy ! I have never claimed to speak for a majority of Americans.


----------



## ajwps (Nov 24, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Opine away my jewish buddy !


 
It seems that we both opine with our own opinions.



> I have never claimed to speak for a majority of Americans.



You said:

*"""No one cares whose "fault" it is any more and I personally am tired of the world expecting the US to solve it.""""*

Are you claiming to speak of the world's expectations of Americans or are you speaking for a majority of American's expectations to solve anything for an allied Democratic country?


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 3, 2012)

No

-


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2012)




----------



## georgephillip (Mar 4, 2012)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?


The first  British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, '*a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.*'

Divide and conquer has worked for imperial empires for centuries.
Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF


----------



## Sunshine (Mar 4, 2012)

freeandfun1 said:


> Isaac Brock said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





9-11 was not the first islamic terrorist activity in this country.   They have been going on as far back as I can remember.   Mostly hijackings and such.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Isaac Brock said:
> 
> 
> > As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> ...



And Britain thought nothing about giving Palestine to the Jews. They never gave a rat's ass about the rights of natives anywhere.


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 4, 2012)

9-11 was.,..,.,.,.,.

An inside job sweetie. But if you want to see whats under the covers you are going to have to be gentile with me ok my plump dumpling 

-


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 4, 2012)

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

Ya right ~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons.

King David hotel was commandeered by the British army who set up their Head Quarters in the hotel. That HQ had a full guard detail of WWII veterans, communications center and a full complement of staff officers.

 October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility. 

 June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were  found to contain bombs. 

 September 3, 1947. A  postal bomb addressed to the British War Office
 exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8) 

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee,  killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran. 

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife. 

The British are familiar with these folks. If you are not killing other people they are murdering their own. 

November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants. [Notice they will even murder their own]

These people are really really the true &#8220;terrorists&#8221; then and NOW -


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 4, 2012)

P F Tinmore said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Brock said:
> ...


*The Irish would likely agree:*

"Storrs&#8217; analogy was no accident. *Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer*, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule..."

"Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the 'facts on the ground' policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories. But they were simply copying *Charles I, the English King, who in 1609* forcibly removed the O&#8217;Neill and O&#8217;Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the *Plantation of Ulster*.

"The 'removal' was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. 

"Native labor was essential to the Plantation&#8217;s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster. *But they lived in a land divided into religious castes*, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom."

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

Race is set against race, tribe against tribe, and religion against religion in the vested interest of the ruling economic class. It always comes back to the class war, imho.


----------



## Wolverine1984 (Mar 5, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Isaac Brock said:
> 
> 
> > As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> ...





> Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.


I'm glad to see that you and Israel are in such good relations ... 
So good in fact that they admitted to you and you alone that they have nuclear weapons. And you are such a good friend of the Israeli minister of defense that he told you the number of weapons Israel has.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 5, 2012)

*Let's ask Bibi:*

"During an interview with Israeli prime minister *Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2011*, Piers Morgan posed a serious question:

MORGAN: Do you have nuclear weapons?

NETANYAHU: Well, we have a longstanding policy that we won&#8217;t be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, and that hasn&#8217;t changed.

MORGAN: So you don&#8217;t have any?

NETANYAHU: That&#8217;s our policy. Not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

"Despite the word games, it is well known that *Israel has been a nuclear weapons power for forty-five years*. As several Israeli historians and journalists have revealed, *Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six Day War in May 1967*. 

"Summarized by Patrick Tyler in his book, A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East&#8212;from the Cold War to the War on Terror:

&#8220;[Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol, according to a number of Israeli sources, secretly ordered the Dimona [nuclear reactor] scientists to assemble two crude nuclear devices. He placed them under the command of Brigadier General Yitzhak Yaakov, the chief of research and development in Israel&#8217;s Defense Ministry. 

"'One official said the operation was referred to as Spider because the nuclear devices were inelegant contraptions with appendages sticking out. The crude atomic bombs were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses.&#8221;

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/03/05/israels-nuclear-weapons-program-and-lessons-for-iran/


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 5, 2012)

Should Israel have been created?~~~~~~~~

You tell me - ?

What Isael can do to save itself -? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


I await your answer -

                                                       but not forever


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 5, 2012)

tooldtocare said:


> Should Israel have been created?~~~~~~~~
> 
> You tell me - ?
> 
> ...


Israel was created the instant Joshua put his big 'ol hobnailed Jesus sandals into the Promised Land. And that's a fact, Jack.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 5, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> *Let's ask Bibi:*
> 
> "During an interview with Israeli prime minister *Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2011*, Piers Morgan posed a serious question:
> 
> ...


How 'bout Bibi's speech tonight, GP? I knew you would like it.


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 5, 2012)

NOTtheTalk - Anti-Semitism where did it come from? (International)

-


----------



## tooldtocare (Mar 5, 2012)

tooldtocare said:


> The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:
> 
> Ya right ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> ...



Iike it matters to me, I am finished soon enough  -


----------



## MikeK (Mar 6, 2012)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?


Because I have cause to believe our support of Israel was the primary motivation for the 9/11 attack I know of no good reason why the U.S. should risk the potential (terrorist) consequences of continuing to act as Israel's protector.    So, with regard to the land disputes and the historical hostility that exists between Israel and its Arab adversaries, I know relatively little about it and I am frankly not interested in knowing any more.  

Israel is a foreign country and its disputes with its neighbors is none of my business, nor is it any of my country's business.  The U.S. has enough problems of its own to deal with.  If Israel goes to war with its enemies I frankly don't care which side wins.  They could wipe each other out to the last man standing and so long as it does not affect my country I am not concerned.  Unfortunately the majority of American Jews infer that disposition to be anti-Semitic, which is a source of considerable annoyance to me.    

I understand that Jews have been persecuted moreso than any other people and have been expelled from every country ever to host them throughout recorded history.  I'm not concerned with the reason for that.  What does concern me is that American Jews have nothing like that to worry about here in America.  They have no such concern because they enjoy the same level of protection against religious persecution as any other category of Americans.  But that is not enough for many Jews who wish to presumptively assign the same level of protection they enjoy as American citizens to the citizens of a foreign nation simply because that nation happens to be a Jewish theocracy -- *and with absolutely no consideration for the existing and potential cost, in both blood and treasure, to the United States for that protection.*   I perceive this category of American Jews to be Jews first and Americans second, which I regard as disloyalty.   

If I were Jewish, and if I were as strongly in favor of protecting Israel as so many American Jews seem to be, I would dissolve my holdings here, emigrate to Israel and join the IDF as so many other truly dedicated American Jews have done.  

And if the above stated orientation means I am anti-Semitic, then that's what I am.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2012)

The creation of Israel can only be described as an act of armed robbery.


----------



## Wolverine1984 (Mar 6, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> *Let's ask Bibi:*
> 
> "During an interview with Israeli prime minister *Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2011*, Piers Morgan posed a serious question:
> 
> ...


Wow , that's sad... Your 'evidence' is that Netanyahu didn't say Israel  possess nuclear weapons ?

All your other quotes are just opinions ,nothing concrete... 
""Despite the word games, it is well known that *Israel has been a nuclear weapons power for forty-five years*."
If it were well known he would not have to ask , wouldn't he ?


----------



## Wolverine1984 (Mar 6, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Isaac Brock said:
> 
> 
> > As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> ...


I don't think that makes you Anti-Semitic , you raised valid issues.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 6, 2012)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Let's ask Bibi:*
> ...


My stomach isn't that strong, Hoss.
All governments lie, but those with the biggest guns lie best.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Mar 18, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel can only be described as an act of armed robbery.



The Arabs robbed the entire Middle East and North Africa by force.  They are called "Arabs" because they come from "Arabia".


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 18, 2013)

the real question is------SHOULD ARABS HAVE BEEN INVENTED    or let out 
of their desert homeland ------and the fine company of their illiterate, 
unwashed bretheren?


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 18, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?


----------



## MJB12741 (Mar 18, 2013)

All Arab lands are stolen lands conquered by force against the non Muslim indigenous populations.  Fact:  There were no Muslims at all until after the 7th century AD.  And all of today's Muslim lands were previously already occupied by others who were forced to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## Lipush (Mar 18, 2013)

Uuhhh, guys?

Any special reason why we're bumbing a thread from 2004?


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 18, 2013)

It would have been much safer for everyone if the refugees had gone to America, where they were welcome. And, no, the 'Moslems' would not be chasing them here.


----------



## MJB12741 (Mar 18, 2013)

Right or wrong, like it or not, for better or for worse, the bottom line is that any land anywhere belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time.  As long as Americans rule the USA, the land is ours.  And as long as Israel rules Israel, the land is Israels.




MJB12741 said:


> All Arab lands are stolen lands conquered by force against the non Muslim indigenous populations.  Fact:  There were no Muslims at all until after the 7th century AD.  And all of today's Muslim lands were previously already occupied by others who were forced to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## Lipush (Mar 18, 2013)

Are home is in Israel, where we belong.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 18, 2013)

All people are one, and our home is Earth.


----------



## Lipush (Mar 18, 2013)

Then why are we ruining it?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 18, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


But your stomach seems strong enough, Georgie Boy, to post a lot of nonsense.  Does it really take big guns for a country or those from that country to lie a lot?  Do you really think that if you actually had the money to visit some Muslim country, the leaders would really tell you that those who are non Muslims or Muslims of different sects are shown such tolerance when it comes to matters of religion?  Go find some Muslims in your own city (there are plenty of them) and see them lie about the millions and millions of people Muslims have murdered since the inception of Islam.  Years ago they didn't even need guns to do that -- their trusty swords did them quite well.  Georgie Boy reminds me of those Muslims you see yelling Death to the U.S.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 18, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?


Looking back on what they have done since statehood:

their wanton aggression against its neighbors
their inhuman treatment of the Palestinian's
their interference in US politics
their tyrannical Prime Ministers
They don't deserve a country!


----------



## Lipush (Mar 19, 2013)

Luckily, haters like you are not calling the shots, nor are important in everyway.

Israel exists because this is how it should be


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 19, 2013)

Lipush said:


> Uuhhh, guys?
> 
> Any special reason why we're bumbing a thread from 2004?



Good question. But did you notice how much more civil the discussion was back then than the ones we have with the juveniles we have on the board now?


----------



## editec (Mar 19, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



Your question failed to identify from whose perspective would we be answering that question.

For Jews the creation of Israel was a boon.

For the inhabitants of that place in 1917 it was mostly a disaster.

I suspect America would have been better off if it hadn't been created, but probably not for the reasons that many think.

Had there been no Israel to flee to more Jews would live in the USA.

And that would have been a good thing for this nation, I suspect.

Jews contributions to the societies where they live are usually enormous if they're given half a chance to contribute freely to that society.

Show me any city in America where one cannot find a decent bagel and I'll show you a place where in all likihood, there is damned little culture, too.

The cost of sharing a nation with Jews is far surpassed by the benefits of having them in it.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 19, 2013)

_et al,_

The question is a trap in itself.


It is not a question of ancient land associations.
It is not a question of previous established rights.
It is not a question of decree by a deity or religious dogma.

It is a fundamental question about the Powers-that-be at the time; the Principle Allied Powers and the League of Nations (LoN).  By asking the question on the creation of Palestine, the legitimacy of all the regional nations comes into question.



freeandfun1 said:


> NATO AIR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The "Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine (SCFGP)," the LoN entity that reviewed the data, conditions, overall situation, and researched the issues, ---  made the recommendation that were to form the basis for Partition of the Palestine Mandate outlined in GA Resolution 181(II).  In the French Mandate, Syria was already discussed and outlined in the Treaty of Sevres (1920), and so Lebanon was formed by default _(Land area of the Mandate minus Syria equals Lebanon)_.  In the case of the British Mandate, the LoN and Allied Powers had to address 4 main issues:


The promise of a Heshemite Kingdom.
The Special City of Jerusalem.
One additional Arab Nation (to be named later).
The Issue of a Jewish National Home; how to implement and establish.

The simple question of "Should Israel have been created?" is really deceptively complex.  Recalling today, the situation as the LoN and Allied Powers saw back then.


The Land/Territories and people, cover by the Treaty, were part of the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was an opposition power to the Principle Allied Powers.  _(The people we call Palestinians today, were - back then, the indigenous population of a post-War enemy state.)_
The Principle Allied Powers were the victors of the conflict settled by combat.
The Heshemite Bedouins were allied with the Principle Allied Powers. 
The customary approach to post-War settlements and agreements of the time _(19th Century Rules)_; as being modified by the new thoughts of the early 20th Century.

Part of the trap to this question, is to forget the time frame, the general situation, and the customary way post-War arrangements were made during that period.  Instead, we try to apply early 21st Century logic, emotions, and sympathies to the question which --- will lead to a different result entirely _(of course, if the LoN/Allied Powers knew then, what we know now, they might have done things differently - hind sight is 20/20 for the Monday Morning Quarterback)_. 

The question, really should consider, if YOU _(the product of an 18th Century western education)_ ---> the victors of a very hard fought early 20th Century War, having just defeated the Ottoman Empire in over half of North Africa, and the entire Middle East, would have done it differently in the post-War era that followed?

Sometimes, over simplification of an issue drops out variables that have a huge impact on the answer.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 19, 2013)

The Allied Powers defeated the Ottoman Empire and then set in motion events that lead to the imposition of a settler-colonial state in Israel circa 1948. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians were fled lands they had lived on for generations. Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate); perhaps elites in the west who have gotten even richer off the misery of Jew and Arab alike in Palestine since 1948 should pay the cost of reparations to their Semitic victims?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 19, 2013)

Hundreds of thousands of jews fled lands in which they 
had lived long before the rapist pig,  muhummad,  of 
arabia------was born.     WHO MADE MONEY off this 
demographic shift?      I am fascinated.   Hundreds of 
thousands of  BENGALIS----fled  east bengal to west 
bengal in   1971----did someone make a fortune out of 
that too?.       In fact hundreds of thousands of Irish--
fled the British Isles to america-----during a famine---did 
someone make a fortune on their backs too?

It is true that  Cortez got his filthy paws on the gold 
of mexico-----but that was justified by  SAINT ISABELLA--
in the name of allah, isa and the rapist pig and the 
SPANISH INQUISITION


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 19, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> It would have been much safer for everyone if the refugees had gone to America, where they were welcome. And, no, the 'Moslems' would not be chasing them here.



'Welcome'?????  Just where are you getting that little fantasy from???


----------



## Roudy (Mar 19, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > It would have been much safer for everyone if the refugees had gone to America, where they were welcome. And, no, the 'Moslems' would not be chasing them here.
> ...


He forgot the boatload of Jews that was refused by America and sent back to their deaths.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 19, 2013)

Roudy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


I remember the radio broadcasts at the time and American citizens were devastated by the news. Back in those days, Herr Roosevelt and his government were stifling free speech.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 19, 2013)

It would not have worked anyway-----Israel already existed as a state by  the end of the  19th  century    ---a fact which islamo nazi pigs always like to ignore 
It did not have independence from the Ottoman empire at 
that point-----but it had everything needed to  MAKE IT A 
STATE---including sufficient population ---social and governmental institutions ---etc-.    By that time it was 
far more a  STATE than the mythic  "palestine"  is today.

It had a very good reason TO EXIST as a jewish state-----
simple---a refuge for jews from the STINK OF THE MANY 
ISLAMIC STATES IN THE AREA  

   try to remember----nature seeks SYMETRY


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 19, 2013)

Lipush said:


> Luckily, haters like you are not calling the shots, nor are important in everyway.
> 
> Israel exists because this is how it should be


This isn't about "haters", it's about "humans".

Anyone who cares about humanity, is appauled by the way Israel treats the Palestinian's.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 19, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> anyone who cares for humanity would be  APPALLED
> by the way arabs treated jews and would  APPLAUD
> their escape from the SHIT HOLES OF ISLAMIC
> OPPRESSION---just as all decent people APPLAUD
> ...


Yeah, but this thread is about Israel.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 19, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> Hundreds of thousands of jews fled lands in which they
> had lived long before the rapist pig,  muhummad,  of
> arabia------was born.     WHO MADE MONEY off this
> demographic shift?      I am fascinated.   Hundreds of
> ...


Learn to read:

"His Majesty's government view with favour *the establishment in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood *that nothing shall be done* which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*..."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 19, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Learn to read:
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour *the establishment in Palestine* of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood *that nothing shall be done* which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*..."
> 
> Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But they didn't do that now, did they?


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 19, 2013)

loinboy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Learn to read:
> ...


It seems to have worked out well for some...

"The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to *Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild*), a leader of the British Jewish community..."
*"His Majesty.."*

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 19, 2013)

georgephillip;  _et al,_

Of course, there are other hypothesis. 



georgephillip said:


> The Allied Powers defeated the Ottoman Empire and then set in motion events that lead to the imposition of a settler-colonial state in Israel circa 1948. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians were fled lands they had lived on for generations.


*(COMMENT)*

The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause.  And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.



georgephillip said:


> Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);


*(COMMENT)*

That is rather a telling statement.

Ah yessss...  This is a common anti-government theme.

There is no mention of the land purchases through the Jewish Agency program made lucrative through Egyptian Banks and Real Estate brokers.



georgephillip said:


> perhaps elites in the west who have gotten even richer off the misery of Jew and Arab alike in Palestine since 1948 should pay the cost of reparations to their Semitic victims?


*(COMMENT)*

Why would you suspect that the elite of the Mandatory would have profited more than the mortgage holders and transfer brokers in Damascus and Cairo?

I suspect, as well, that some reparations and restitutions are probably due.  It will take some sort of an effort, given the accounting required to compute the damage caused by the agressors, less the incurred damage claims and associated compensation; and eventually treaty limitations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 19, 2013)

Mr R----regarding the land purchases----WHO WOULD BE  
"compensated"      ?????      compensated for what??????


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 19, 2013)

Yes, it should. Next question.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 19, 2013)

irosie91,   _et al,_

Yes, this has been discussed in many different ways.  It truly needs either to be mutually agreed upon by direct negotiation, or by a special court of claims.



irosie91 said:


> Mr R----regarding the land purchases----WHO WOULD BE
> "compensated"      ?????      compensated for what??????


*(COMMENT)*

There are different kinds of claims relative to property.


Claims of confiscation.
Claims of destruction.
Claims of forced deportation causing separation and loss.
Claims of income loss from productivity of property lost.
etc

In reverse, are the offsets from the cost of defensive measures from the three wars, and two Intifad's; and the $2 billion per year paid to Egypt and Jordan in aid packages arranged largely in exchange for peace treaties with Israel.  the construction of the Wall and the construction of the security barriers and check points.

It could get complicated.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 19, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip;  _et al,_
> 
> Of course, there are other hypothesis.
> 
> ...





> The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause. And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.



That is not true.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

I know, you see this as an invasion.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *(COMMENT)*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities.  That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland.   This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.  

The Palestinian/Arab League pattern of behavior was hostile action.  You might be able to make a case if it was a one-time event; but, there have been three wars.  All three were provoked by the Arab side.

So, while the immature feud continues, there is little question that the Arab/Palestinian pulled the trigger first.  They simply were unable to adapt to the changes of the 20th Century and the Post-War developments that came with time.

There is a test question:  If the Arab League/Palestinians had NOT opened up hostilities and initiated open warfare on 15 May 1948, would we be facing the same situation today?  ---   OR   ---   Would the Arabs and Israelis be better-off in the long run?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 20, 2013)

the answer is simple----- DAR AL ISLAM     ---a cause

    something like    1st reich,   2nd reich   3rd  reich  
       and caliphate        the  cause of the conflict is 
       the ideologies----of    THE REICHS   and  
       THE CALIPHATES


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause.  And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.


Tell that to the Palestinian's who were massacred at Deir Yassin by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

If for what you said was true, how do you explain the fact that there had been no major incidents of violence between jews and arabs prior to the zionist migration?



> _Myth #1 &#8211; Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.
> 
> Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, *Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination* and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a &#8220;Jewish State&#8221; in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.
> 
> For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, *the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that &#8220;there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.&#8221;* Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land._


This was never more apparent than in the racist, apartheid policies, zionists brought with them during the migration, as I will demonstrate below.



RoccoR said:


> There is no mention of the land purchases through the Jewish Agency program made lucrative through Egyptian Banks and Real Estate brokers.


Land purchases came with a catch_*............."an apartheid catch".*_



> _*A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home".*
> 
> Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements.
> 
> *The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929, which was investigated by the Shaw Commission*. Another commission headed by Sir John Hope Simpson followed to investigate questions of immigration and land transfers. Certain observations of the Hope Simpson Commission are of interest, particularly on labour and employment policies._


And there's no way anyone can argue these policies were not racist and apartheid at their core. 



> _The report described in some detail the *employment policies of the Zionist agencies* quoting some of their provisions:
> 
> "The effect of the Jewish colonization in Palestine on the existing population *is very intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, sell and lease their land.*
> 
> ...


So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Mar 20, 2013)

loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The outbreak of hostilities was the primary cause.  And the outbreak of hostilities was initiated by the Palestinians.
> ...



Jews have always been accused of never wanting to do menial, dirty work like construction or farming, so when the first Zionists immigrated, it was a matter of pride to them.  They found a neglected land, drained the swamps, and made the desert bloom.  But you should know that in Israel now, professionals like my uncle and aunt hire Arabs to build their houses.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 20, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Jews have always been accused of never wanting to do menial, dirty work like construction or farming, so when the first Zionists immigrated, it was a matter of pride to them.  They found a neglected land, drained the swamps, and made the desert bloom.  But you should know that in Israel now, professionals like my uncle and aunt hire Arabs to build their houses.


It would really be nice to see   liberal, left-wing jews, become the dominant political party in Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> I know, you see this as an invasion.
> 
> ...





> The minority group, the Jewish, didn't not open hostilities. That was done by the Arabs (Palestinians) that opposed the LoN/Allied Powers immigration policies, to support the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. This was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers.



Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.

Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Wishful thinking on your part. Rocco provides facts which you always dispute.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip;  _et al,_
> 
> Of course, there are other hypothesis.
> 
> ...


Rocco...here's where my "telling statement" stems from:

"He (Adam Smith) also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. 

"He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.' 

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the '*merchants and manufacturers*,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. 

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Chomsky and Smith share an opinion that inclines me to believe private wealth doesn't even exist without investment bankers and other war criminals.

Glad you're back, Rocco!

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Indeed, he stated that Palestine was being taken over by foreigners.

That is what I have been saying all along. I don't dispute that.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 20, 2013)

Maybe that's the way it's supposed to work but those genuises had no practical experience. Only classroom theory.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.



P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. The Palestinians were defending their country from this invasion.
> 
> Indeed, it was a stated intention of the LoN/Allied Powers. Were the Palestinians expected to sit on their hands while this invasion was taking place before their eyes?


*(COMMENT)*

There are just so many things wrong with this piece of your perspective.


What you call "their country" was not their country.  It was territory under the Mandate decided by Treaty and the Allied Powers/LoN;  relinquished from Turkey (the Successor Nation) to the LoN/Allied Powers.  What we call the Palestinians today, were once a people under Ottoman Sovereignty.  _(See Article 139 of the Treaty of Sevres)_


What you call an "invasion" was an invasion.  It was a program to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency.  _(See Articles 4 & 6 of the Mandate)_


What you call a "defense" was not a defense.  It was the duty of the Mandatory (the UK) to defend the territory; not that of the Palestinian.  It was an armed insurgency by the population, of a former and subdued aggressor empire, in open defiance --- to obstruct a key objective of the Mandate; that to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  _(See the Preamble and Articles 4 & 5 of the Mandate)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.
> 
> ...





Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.



> *What you call an "invasion" was an invasion.*  It was a program to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency.  _(See Articles 4 & 6 of the Mandate)_



Indeed it was.



> What you call a "defense" was not a defense.  *It was the duty of the Mandatory (the UK) to defend the territory; not that of the Palestinian.*  It was an armed insurgency by the population, of a former and subdued aggressor empire, in open defiance --- to obstruct a key objective of the Mandate; that to establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  _(See the Preamble and Articles 4 & 5 of the Mandate)_



Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 20, 2013)

georgephillip;  _et al,_

*(PREFACE)*

There is no question that the influence that large domestic and transnational corporations have over Congress is, worrisome.  The is even a TV Drama about a future time when corporations run the government _("Continuum" on the SyFi Channel)_.   And no doubt, there will be a struggle to diminish this influence over time, as the interest of the people declines and the wealth of the nation is concentrated into the hands of a very few.  That time hasn't come yet.



georgephillip said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Since all governments serve the interests of their richest citizens (natural and corporate);
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is no doubt that "Adam Smith" (of 18th Century British Economics fame and author of the "wealth of Nations") has had an tremendous influence on those in American that ultimately turnout to control Economic Policy.  It has been required reading since before I went to college.  And who has not heard of Noam Chomsky _(one of today's best known philosopher, political activist, and lecturer)_ on political issues and controversies of our time.   Having said that, it is important to note that balance must be maintained between the influence and control of the very rich --  and the desperation of the remaining 97% of the population that suffers from the adverse impact of the hardships presented by the floundering economy and receding standard of living; if we are to avoid a truly horrific class warfare struggle. 



georgephillip said:


> Glad you're back, Rocco!


*(COMMENT)*

Many thanks.  I didn't think anyone noticed I was even gone.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip;  _et al,_
> 
> *(PREFACE)*
> 
> ...



I missed you.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.



P F Tinmore said:


> Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.
> 
> Indeed it was.
> 
> Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.


*(COMMENT)*

So much wrong here.

The region, we call today Palestine, was a portion of the Ottoman Empire.  Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, forfeited the rights of sovereignty over that land (as well as several others).  They were not countries.  In the case of Palestine, not only was it not a country, but the lands and meaning of Palestine was undefined.



			
				Section III said:
			
		

> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of _*Palestine*_, *within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers*, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Sevres Treaty: Part III



In 1920, there wasn't even a recognized outline to Palestine.  That was made by the Allied Powers, under the terms of the Treaty.  The Allied Powers determined what they would call "Palestine" and made a Mandate through the LoN Process. 

Make no mistake!  There was no such country as Palestine.  It is a made-up territory with a ancient name.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Mar 20, 2013)

Even when Rocco provides indisputable evidence, Tinmore finds a way to make up more stories.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 20, 2013)

toastman said:


> Even when Rocco provides indisputable evidence, Tinmore finds a way to make up more stories.



Tinnie has created a specific  "reality"      His "reality"  consists of a  LAND CALLED 
PALESTINE     which is peopled by a specific  society of people since ancient times 
called  "palestinians"      Its borders were ratified in 1922 as immutable and eternal 
and its population and unchanging demographics dominated by   "arabs" ---yet 
another mythic society of which "palestinians"  are a subset and 
who in his mind have populated the middle east for at least 3000 years.  
If you accept his basic premise-----you can understand his posts.    His concepts 
are not all that weird------he considers jews  to be "foreigners"    to  "palestine"---
in the same way  Episcopalian Bostonians might consider a tribe of SIOUX  Indians 
to be  "foreigners"    in North America.    Jews lived in arabia----for a period of time 
about as long as   ISLAM has existed   ----christians for several centuries ---perhaps
 as much as five centuries-----and perhaps zoroastrians too---about as long as 
jews.      In arabia today----all three groups would be considered ABSOLUTELY---
foreigners      Arabians of today date their own society and language and culture
 back to  Noah  (the one 
with the ark and two by two zoo)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.
> 
> ...



You are grasping at straws.



> in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people



What did that mean?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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




It means jews seeking refuge from  christian and islamic oppression could migrate 
to the land that was approximately called  "palestine"   since the romans sacked 
Israel/judea and rendered its land   part of the  "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  
Historically ---since the time of the establishement of the "HOLY ROMAN 
EMPIRE"    and the invasion of "PALESTINE"  by arabs  ---jews had continued 
to maintain both a presence in  and an IDEOLOGY  which included "palestine" 
as a national homeland.....in the early part of the 19th century---
the OTTOMANS   who ruled the  OTTOMAN CALIPHATE----mitigated  
shariah law in  "palestine"   and made it legal for jews to buy land there--
which jews did-----as a kind of program for preparation for "return"  to 
that land as a national homeland for jews.    This situation became 
RECOGNIZED   by several countries         NOW YOU GOT IT?

Since muslims consider  any land EVER INVADED BY MUSLIMS---
to be  "MUSLIM LAND FOREVER"----many were alarmed----it was 
something like the  "TRAGEDY OF ANDALUSIA"    and the 
DISMANTLING OF THE MOGHUL EMPIRE   <gasp>

    simple history  Tinnie      where was your mind in the eighth grade?


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



what it didn't mean, i think, is more important than what it did mean. 

a "national home" means neither a "nation" nor a "state".

you may have to be irish to understand what the british mean.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 20, 2013)

"a NATIONAL HOME    means neither a nation or a state"

  <<<<   the most idiotic statement of the century


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 20, 2013)

*What the Irish understand...
*
"Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule."

In 1609 an English King evicted thousands of Catholics from northern Ireland and replaced them with 20,000 Protestants. Over four hundred years later, the first British governor of Jerusalem noted the similarities in Palestine:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a &#8220;Jewish homeland&#8221; in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, '*a little loyal Jewish Ulster* in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'&#8221;

Storr's insight came at the time the Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 20, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> "a NATIONAL HOME    means neither a nation or a state"
> 
> <<<<   the most idiotic statement of the century



Not at all. Read the 1939 British white paper.


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 20, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> "a NATIONAL HOME    means neither a nation or a state"
> 
> <<<<   the most idiotic statement of the century



it beomes increasingly obvious to me that you do not even read your own posts before you hit "submit reply".


----------



## 50_RiaL (Mar 20, 2013)

I give daily thanks that there's an Israel . . . lest we have 58 muslim nations & 22 arab states that'd give us nothin' but misery & grief!


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Paul is not wrong here.   There is no equivocation between the phrase "Jewish National Home" and "Jewish State."  While they are not equal --- and meanings are not the same, it does not preclude a "Jewish State."   It is diplomatic-ese that statehood was not an inevitability.  

The concept of a "Jewish State" is but one way to achieve the goal of a "Jewish National Homeland."



P F Tinmore said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > "a NATIONAL HOME    means neither a nation or a state"
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

While the intent of the national authors is a bit ambiguous, interpretation of the thought by the audience is as at least important as the intent _(no matter what the original intent was)_.  

The Balfour Declaration (1917), on the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, was subsequently amplified twice by the UK.


British White Paper (BWP#1) of June 1922 on Palestine
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
http://www.hartzman.com/Israel/Mandate Era/Churchill White Paper - 1922.pdf

British White Paper (BWP#2) of 1939 on Palestine
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939


To fully appreciate the thought conveyed _(not necessarily the intent)_, one must also consider the timeline.  


Balfour Declaration (1917)
The Covenant of the League of Nations (June 1919 & effective January 1920) 
Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)
Twelfth Zionist Congress (Sep 1921)
BWP#1 (June 1922)
Mandate for Palestine (Aug 1922)
BWP#2 (1939)

The key, in this conversation, in BWP#1 _(AKA: The Churchill Paper)_, which comes before the Mandate, and addresses the question directly, at a time when all the basic documents are fresh and uncorrupted by memory, policy chances, and subsequent events.  



			
				4 Excerpts from BWP#1: The Churchill Paper said:
			
		

> at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the *official statement of Zionist aims* "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them *to make the common home* into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is *not susceptible of change*.
> 
> ...



The BWP#2 was written 17 years later _(almost two decades)_ by an entirely different internal UK government regime, and after the formation of the Black Hand _[one of the first Palestinian anti-Government Insurent Groups assembled by Izz al-Qassam (namesake of the al-Qassam Rocket and the Hamas Brigade of the same name)]_, and the rain of terror that followed.  And the tone of the BWP#2 reflects the frustration of the Mandatory given the notable Arab/Palestinian violence which emerged, absent any decision on Statehood for either faction; let alone favoring one over the other.  But it was clear at that time, that the Arab/Palestinians had not yet mastered the ability to settle their disputes with the Jewish people by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered.  Thus the Mandatory saw it was necessary that an official statement be made that statehood was not yet on the agenda or being considered.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 21, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Paul is not wrong here.   There is no equivocation between the phrase "Jewish National Home" and "Jewish State."  While they are not equal --- and meanings are not the same, it does not preclude a "Jewish State."   It is diplomatic-ese that statehood was not an inevitability.
> 
> ...





> the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."



Of course that was a lie for public consumption. There was no intention of moving into Palestine to live with the natives.There was no such thing as making a "flourishing common community." It became apparent early on that this was a settler colonialist project. Settlers were being imported by the boatload and everywhere they settled the natives were shoved aside. When the natives brought their concerns to the mandate, Britain shoved them aside also. There was no peaceful solution available to the natives.

This went counter to the LoN covenant and the stated goal of mandate itself. What the lying propagandists call "attacks on the Jews" was the natives defending their country from this takeover.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 21, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course that was a lie for public consumption. There was no intention of moving into Palestine to live with the natives.There was no such thing as making a "flourishing common community." It became apparent early on that this was a settler colonialist project. Settlers were being imported by the boatload and everywhere they settled the natives were shoved aside. When the natives brought their concerns to the mandate, Britain shoved them aside also. There was no peaceful solution available to the natives.
> 
> This went counter to the LoN covenant and the stated goal of mandate itself. What the lying propagandists call "attacks on the Jews" was the natives defending their country from this takeover.


I already proved this in an earlier post and *RoccoR* wouldn't even respond to it.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 21, 2013)

lionboy,

I apologize.  I obviously missed something _(some proof of some sort)_ or something.



loinboy said:


> I already proved this in an earlier post and *RoccoR* wouldn't even respond to it.



*(APOLOGY)*

Having missed something, and owing you an apology for ignoring a comment, for which I should have responded, I sincerely apologize.

Please point me to the applicable comment _(post #)_ and I'll make a response.

Very Sincerely,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 21, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> lionboy,
> 
> I apologize.  I obviously missed something _(some proof of some sort)_ or something.
> 
> ...


Post #106.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

loinboy,  _et al,_

First, let's make it clear, the Shaw Commission did not find any irregularities in the transfer of land and leasing.  What land that was acquired, was done legally.   In fact, one of the conclusions of the Shaw Commission was:


"Jewish enterprise and Jewish immigration, when not in excess of the absorptive capacity of the country, have conferred material benefits upon Palestine in which the Arab people share."



loinboy said:


> So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.


*(COMMENT)*

The remainder of the citations made in the Posting (#106 from the Simpson Report) covers business strategies.  They are not "Apartheid" measures by any stretch of the imagination.   

The two Simpson observations dealt with "land" and "employment.  

*LAND:*  There are several land investment strategies that are time honored.  The first of these has to do with terminal holdings; the last sale of the property is the one made to you.  It works on the principle that land is a tangible wealth accumulator that only increases in value.  It is a strategy that has been taught for centuries, in every business school, and still taught today.  _(It is not something new or unique to the Jewish application in the Middle East.  Many of the richest families in America have this same rule.)_



			
				Property Strategy said:
			
		

> Chapter 11:  Always buy - never sell
> [B said:
> 
> 
> ...



*EMPLOYMENT:*  Several factors come into play relative to the employment issues.  These factors include, but are not limited to, cultural teaching attitudes towards work, commitment to the family and community, immigrations support, and economic revenue circulation.  Some of these may sound familiar, as they are very similar to the practices of the Arab Communities in the oil and gas business, and were key factors in the nationalization of foreign oil holdings.

Working the family farm or business has, in the last century in America _(and in particular the last five decades)_, fallen outside the norm.  Offspring no longer establish apprenticeships with their parents _(particularly their fathers)_ or learn the commitment to the family business or the continuation of responsibility to the family by improving the family business.  But prior to WWII, and through the Baby Boomer age, this was not an uncommon theme in America, as well as, the Jewish culture developing in the Middle East, brought though immigration.   This focus on the responsibility to support the family, community, and culture is not such a departure from the Judeo-Christian ethics and values practiced in the last century:


The Traditional Family  _(Self explanatory.)_
A National Work Ethic  _(2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.")_
The Right to an Education  _(Deuteronomy 6:7 "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.")_
Personal Accountability  _(Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.")_

Because a National Homeland was the objective by declaration, treaty and mandate, to be enjoyed by all the Jewish People from all parts of the world, immigration was an inevitability  _(Article 4, Mandate, "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home")_.   And it would be incumbent on the Jewish Population to support that new immigration influx and make it productive and prosperous.   This was not a new and startling revelation to the LoN, the Mandatory, or the Jewish People.  



			
				Article 6 said:
			
		

> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)



Everyone, but the Arab Population, understood that building a Jewish National Home, from near scratch, was going to be hard work and that hardish would be expected.  The fact that the local Arab Population did not profit to the degree they wanted, is not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant.  Remember, there were Arab Profiteers; as noted in an observation in the Hope-Simpson Report:



			
				Report on Immigration said:
			
		

> "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a *considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay*."
> 
> *SOURCE: * Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, Cmd. 3686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Again, the fact that the Arab Land Sale Profiteering did not trickle down to the general population and bust the economy was not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant; but that of the greedy Arab Profiteers that syphoned the wealth out of the region. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR,

So you believe the takeover of someones country is OK of it is done by the proper foreigners?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> loinboy,  _et al,_
> 
> First, let's make it clear, the Shaw Commission did not find any irregularities in the transfer of land and leasing.  What land that was acquired, was done legally.   In fact, one of the conclusions of the Shaw Commission was:
> 
> ...



*WOW, a whole page of external interference.*



> By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine,* without external interference,* their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
> 
> It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.
> 
> The right to self-determination - IHL


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 22, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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




  Mr R.    try to understand---in the islamo nazi world there are  
"INSIDERS"   and  "OUTSIDERS"      I know about it because I 
grew up in a semi-rural/suburban WASP town in the USA.    Some 
people----in the case of my town,,  blue eyed episcopalians----
are INSIDERS ---no matter from where or how they got into town,,  
and some people are always  OUTSIDERS---no matter how long 
they lived in town or how they acquired their property.

What  tinnie explained to you is----in HIS world-----arabs 
are "INSIDERS"    and jews are  "OUTSIDERS"  

The model does include a kind of resident caste----in my town 
there were some blacks----also OUTSIDERS---but they could 
be tolerated as "residents"  --not  INSIDERS---if they belonged 
to a  "SERVANT"  caste      In the islamo-nazi world---jews can 
be tolerated ---not as insiders---but as shoemakers and 
pharmacists<< in a kind of caste


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

P F Tinmore; _et al,_

What you call "external interference" is really the "will of the General Assembly" concerning an obligation under Charter, Treaty and executed by Resolution.

Your citation is not applicable, as there is specific language within the charter concerning Trusteeship (AKA: Mandates).  You are not citing the Charter or the Law.  You are citing a dissertation from the IHL, which amplifies the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) more than the Charter.  In this case, the conflict arising from the hostilities opened by the Palestinians are surely applicable.  Nothing in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) authorizes settlement through armed insurgent activity; in fact, it speaks to the contrary.



P F Tinmore said:


> *WOW, a whole page of external interference.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

Again, GA Resolution 181(II) was a non-binding, voluntary agreement (by offer) between the GA and two parties.  Since it was voluntary - it did not require Security Council Action.  The power and authority of the Security Council does not extend over peaceful agreements by the GA.



			
				Chapter IV FUNCTIONS and POWERS said:
			
		

> The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.
> 
> _Note:  The UN Trustee Council is the successor organization to LoN Mandate System._​
> 
> ...



The Charter does not preclude action by the GA relative to Trusteeship _(formerly Mandates)_.  In this case, it was a "Charter Obligation" and not "External Interference;" since, by Charter the action are authorized.  External Interference applies to a set of different situations.  In fact, while the Charter does use the words "self-determination" once, in Chapter I, it doesn't use the words "external influence" at all in the entire Charter.  That is unique phrasing in the 1970 GA Resolution 2625 (XXV):  Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States.  And it require compliance with the Charter.  Trusteeships (Mandates) are cited in the Charter.  In this case, the Palestinians are in non-compliance.   _(Failure to Recognize and Armed Aggression)_



			
				Chapter XII said:
			
		

> The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.
> 
> The Trusteeship Council, operating under the authority of the General Assembly shall assist the General Assembly in carrying out these functions.
> 
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

This is a trick question.

If I say yes, then I'm guilty, it would suggest that something was taken by the Israelis from the Arabs.
If I say no, then I suggest the belief that it belonged to the Palestinians.

Palestine was not a country, it was an undefined region.  In 1920 it was a region with a population and territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire; and an enemy realm composing opposition to the Allied Powers.

In one sense, the Great War (WWI) never ended.  There has been almost constant and continuous fighting between the powers-that-be, and the Arab/Palestinian since the closure of hostilities with the Ottoman Forces.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR,
> 
> So you believe the takeover of someones country is OK of it is done by the proper foreigners?


*(COMMENT)*

No one took over "someones country;" least of all, from the Arab/Palestinians.  The territory was given over to the Mandatory of the Allied Powers; not to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> This is a trick question.
> 
> ...





> The territory was given over to the Mandatory



No it wasn't.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 22, 2013)

tinsy----try to live with the fact that there has been a jewish 
population in the Middle east for some 4000 years----and it 
has a right to self-determination.    There is no reason to 
suggest that  arabs who have resided in the middle east 
do not also have a right to self-determination----there is enough 
land in the middle east for everyone.   Considering recent 
social developements----the self determination rights of the 
1700 year old christian community must also be acknowleged--
along with the 1200 year old  muslim community


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

P F TINMORE,  _et al,_

Don't quibble with words.  Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The territory was given over to the Mandatory
> ...


*(COMMENT)*



			
				Excerpt said:
			
		

> The High Contracting Parties *agree to entrust*, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, *to a Mandatory *to be selected by the said Powers.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Sevres Treaty: Part III



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> What you call "external interference" is really the "will of the General Assembly" concerning an obligation under Charter, Treaty and executed by Resolution.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link.



> b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the *inhabitants* of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples *and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned*, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;



I don't think "the peoples" or "inhabitants" means foreigners out of Europe.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F TINMORE,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't quibble with words.  Remember, Mandatory and Trustee are the same thing.
> 
> ...





> the administration of Palestine,



Not ownership. Not sovereignty.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

P F TINMORE,  _et al,_

Quibbling again.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

I didn't say "ownership or Sovereignty."   That was something you injected.  

The Palestinians had neither.  You keep raising that issue.  Ownership is a "real estate" term, it doesn't imply anything relative to the type and kind of sovereignty. 

By the way, what was given over, was a "suzerainty status" of the empire.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 22, 2013)

The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis.  Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia:  that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews  are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 22, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis.  Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia:  that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews  are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.




Marge---give up----the issue is  OUTSIDERS  ----for tinsy---
a muslim born in egypt---of parents born in somalia----who 
migrates to  "palestine" at age 10----is an INSIDER----and 
a jew born in safed----to parents who were born in Italy---
sicily  (which I believe comes to be sephardi---sorta) who 
migrated to "palestine when they were age 10---is an 
OUTSIDER.     Keep in mind---a jew born in ethiopia---
which is---if I remember correctly---- virtually swimming 
distance to saudi arabia and genetically--
--in its mixed pool cannot 
enter saudi arabia------but  a mexican ---who is  
a descendant of montezuma ----who CONVERTS to islam 
by saying approximately six words in arabic-----is elegible  
 to be  a   HAJJI    There are 'insiders' and there 
are"  'outsiders'  -----for jews the only way to stay in 
palestine is to be born there before 1922---join the
  SHOEMAKERS CASTE AND NOT 
BE ELIGIBLE TO BUY LAND OR IMPORT ONE's 
EGYPTIAN COUSIN FROM ALEXANDRIA----ask tinsy.

of course if one is a muslim born in "palestine"---he is 

eligible to buy  extra wives in pakistan and import them
to   Jaffa     ask tinsy.    For that matter---a Saudi---born 
in saudi arabia is eligible to become a land owning 
PALESTINIAN   too------for that matter an argentinian 
can do the seven words in arabic thing ----and become 
an INSIDER


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

P F Tinmore; _et al,_

Ah, yes, now here you are zeroing in on the issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

As our friend "MHunterB" points out, over time - and through change, the demographics become something different.



MHunterB said:


> The largest group of Israeli Jews are the Sephardi and Mizrachi communities, which are something like 40% of Jewish Israelis.  Another about 15 and 11 % respectively come from Africa and Asia:  that means TWO THIRDS of Israeli Jews  are NOT 'American/European' in descent/culture.



Remember not to apply the literal "general rule" to the "specifics" govern by Treaty _(or as the Charter says, terms of the trusteeship)_.  But in general, that is what the UN did.  It moved forward with a plan that would meet the general and the specific intentions.  GA Resolution 181(II) did just that with the Partition Plan that offered both sets of people, outlined under the Treaty, an opportunity for "self-government or independence."  The Israeli accepted, and the Palestinian declined, escalating aggression with the assistance of "external interference" by the Arab League.  This was constant with their established pattern of hostile and warlike behavior.

It suggest that the Arab/Palestinian was as described, under Article 22 of the Covenant, "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world."  It is quite possible that the Arab/Palestinian was not ready to assume a roll of a sovereign and independent people.  Clearly, even given the withdrawal, the people of Gaza show these descriptive characteristics of a people unable "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement" under conditions of "peace and security."  _(A pattern of behavior.)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F TINMORE,  _et al,_
> 
> Quibbling again.
> 
> ...



Remember, the mandate was to render assistance and advice to Palestine. Palestine and its inhabitants were already there. And, when the mandate left Palestine Palestine and its inhabitants were still there. Well at least the inhabitants that had not gotten the boot yet.

Talk about quibbling with words.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> Ah, yes, now here you are zeroing in on the issue.
> 
> ...



The takeover was by the Europeans. It was not until the mid 40s that immigrants started pouring in from Arab/Muslim countries. These immigrants had little to do with the actual takeover.



> Remember not to apply the literal "general rule" to the "specifics" govern by Treaty _(or as the Charter says, terms of the trusteeship)_.  But in general, that is what the UN did.  It moved forward with a plan that would meet the general and the specific intentions.  GA Resolution 181(II) did just that with the Partition Plan that offered both sets of people, outlined under the Treaty, an opportunity for "self-government or independence."  The Israeli accepted, and the Palestinian declined, escalating aggression with the assistance of "external interference" by the Arab League.  This was constant with their established pattern of hostile and warlike behavior.
> 
> It suggest that the Arab/Palestinian was as described, under Article 22 of the Covenant, "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world."  It is quite possible that the Arab/Palestinian was not ready to assume a roll of a sovereign and independent people.  Clearly, even given the withdrawal, the people of Gaza show these descriptive characteristics of a people unable "to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement" under conditions of "peace and security."  _(A pattern of behavior.)_



Is any of this smoke relevant?



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 22, 2013)

aaaahhhh     Now I understand tinsy-----he resents the fact that there 
were european jews  STRONG enough withstand the filth of jihadism-----
some 150 years ago.  Jews who had-----at sometime in their lives 
----actually held a weapon in their hands in complete violation of 
the filth and stench of shariah law that tinsy so loves for its 
nazi overtones        Jews who were actually brave enough to 
OWN A HORSE---<gasp>
in complete violation of the filth and stench of dhimmia 
oppression.    For those who do not understand 
just who tinsy believes is  "legally"  entitled to 
citizenship amongst  the jews of "palestine"-----it is the 
population that tolerated the stink and filth of slavery
-----the  "good jews" ------like the good  "nigras"   
of the southern plantations that stayed on to pick the 
cotton.    As weird as it all sounds----the issue really 
rests on the fact that   islamo nazis  are  CASTE 
PEOPLE.      Jews in  "islamic lands"  constitute 
a caste-----something like blacks in southern USA


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 22, 2013)

Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Foreign Policy Journal

While this site is all tarted up to appear as some legitimate media outlet for an actual 'think tank' type organization - it's really only a person's blog.  I just don't consider those things very authoritative.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 22, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



THE British were in the nature of trustees, administrators,  they never had ownership or sovereignty of the land within the Mandate.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F TINMORE,  _et al,_
> 
> Quibbling again.
> 
> ...



BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 22, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


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


Sherri and Tinnie are smoking the same batch of bellybutton lint. Pay attention to Rocco and read what he posts, along with the factual references. Jeez, you two are dense.


----------



## toastman (Mar 22, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


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



Says who ??? Provide a link at least Frau Sherri MunnerNazi


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 22, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn; _et al,_

OK, there is the imaginary and then there is reality.



SherriMunnerlyn said:


> BUT the indigenous peoples of Palestine have always had sovereignty rights, that is what you are wrong about, in not recognizing these rights they have in the land, these rights they have always had in the land.


*(COMMENT)*

In 1517 --  the Ottomans defeat all comers and began the rule over Palestine for the next 4 centuries -- until the the end of WWI.  Do you think for a moment, that the Arab/Palestinians had any right to self-determination or the right to independence and sovereignty?  You don't think that even the talk of separation and independence of the region would not have been considered treason and insurrectionist talk and that the Ottoman Secret Police wouldn't drop on them like a ton of bricks?  Do you think that any Islamic Nation gives their people the right to self-determination or the right to sovereignty from the nation?

What, exactly, do you think is the practical application of sovereignty and the right of self-determination?  Where is that universally defined?   Do you think that I can just declare my quarter acre of property sovereign from the nation, independent under my right of self-determination?  I own it!  

No, in reality - it doesn't work that way.  

You use the terminology but have no idea how it works, how to apply it, or what happens after you get it.  One needs only look at Gaza.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 22, 2013)

THEY have a right of self determination in the land under intl law and the UN has recognized that right for over 65 years. COUNTLESS UN documents on UNISPAL WEBSITE ADDRESS THIS RIGHT OF THE Palestinian people in the land of Palestine. INTL LAW  is what it is, noones dreams of Empire will change any of that!


----------



## toastman (Mar 22, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> THEY have a right of self determination in the land under intl law and the UN has recognized that right for over 65 years. COUNTLESS UN documents on UNISPAL WEBSITE ADDRESS THIS RIGHT OF THE Palestinian people in the land of Palestine. INTL LAW  is what it is, noones dreams of Empire will change any of that!



Well, you did an excellent job in not disproving anything he just said !

Good job


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

FOR  posters who are not little children, you should be able to find your way to the UNISPAL website and find dozens of documents addressing the Palestinian people's right of self determination in the land of Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Mar 23, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> FOR  posters who are not little children, you should be able to find your way to the UNISPAL website and find dozens of documents addressing the Palestinian people's right of self determination in the land of Palestine.



For posters who are Nazis , you should post a link containing information that contradicts what Rocco's last post said concerning sovereignty and self determination, or you need to shut you terrorist worsshipping mouth and listen to people who know what they are talking about


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

Every year the UN passes a Resolution affirming the Palestinian people's right of self determination, like the one they passed in December of 2012.



> ANNEX IV Vote on Palestinian Self-Determination
> 
> The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/67/456) was adopted by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
> 
> ...



Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination - GA vote (Plenary) - Press release (Excerpts) (20 December 2012)

Sherri


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

Another UN Document addresses the basis for this annual finding that the Palestinian people have a right of self determination in the Occupied Plaestinian Territories.




> Draft resolution II The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
> 
> The General Assembly, Aware that the development of friendly relations among nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is among the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as defined in the Charter,
> 
> ...



A/67/456 of 7 December 2012

It is deeply entrenched in international law, the right of self determination in the land, of the Palestinian people.

Sherri


----------



## toastman (Mar 23, 2013)

Pay attention Sherri,you once again didn't contradict anything Rocco said. You are just posting Jibberish crap and are trying to get a fast one by me lol. Who do you think you are fooling ?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Pay attention Sherri,you once again didn't contradict anything Rocco said. You are just posting Jibberish crap and are trying to get a fast one by me lol. Who do you think you are fooling ?




Toast    early in my life I came in contact with lots of HINDUS----they are a very 
diverse group and they so fascinated me that now I cook Dhal and Chapattis---
My interaction included communicating with them ----and I became expert to 
the point that by virtue of the manner an Indian spoke english---I could 
discern from what province he hailed from in India.   People of the 
Indian subcontinent have definite  "racial"   (a better term is 'genetic strain' ) 
characteristics.     As far as I have been able to ascertain  the MOST 
INDIGENOUS  are the  "dravidians"    My impression of dravidians---
aside from their peculiar manner of speaking english----is that they are 
a bit small----ie in stature and general build and very dark  complected--
and "pretty"       In fact  DRAVDIANS ARE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 
OF THE INDUS VALLEY ------which makes them the  SOVEREIGNS 
of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT according to sherri      Is that not a 
delight?-----sherri  unequivocally  states that they have a right to toss 
the INVADING MOGHULS  ***THE HELL***   out of the Indian sub-
continent------what they wish to do about the invading aryans  (the 
taller people)  ---well----I will leave that up to the  INDIGENOUS 
DRAVDIANS  (once the cleanse the place of the invading moghuls
 <<<<  read that  "muslims" )


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> What, exactly, do you think is the practical application of sovereignty and the right of self-determination?  Where is that universally defined?   Do you think that I can just declare my quarter acre of property sovereign from the nation, independent under my right of self-determination?  I own it!


That's exactly what the zionists did on May 14, 1948.


> _[Israel] came into being on May 14, 1948, *when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israels existence*, with no specification as to the extent of the new states borders. In a moment, *the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land  it now belonged to the Jews*. In an instant, the Zionists had declared that the majority Arabs of Palestine were now second-class citizens in the new Jewish State._


You need to practice what you preach.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> Pay attention Sherri,you once again didn't contradict anything Rocco said. You are just posting Jibberish crap and are trying to get a fast one by me lol. Who do you think you are fooling ?


You calling UN resolutions "jibberish", say's a lot!


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy said:


> _You calling UN resolutions "jibberish", ... ._


Worthy to be recycled into good toilet paper too.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

docmauser1 said:


> Worthy to be recycled into good toilet paper too.


What happened to "drivel"?


----------



## editec (Mar 23, 2013)

The question



> Should Israel have been created?



leads me to ask the same question about many nations that exist now that are the direct or indirect result of the MANDATE system following WWI.

Obviously history cannot answer questions like "Should have...?" because such asking questions are above history's paygrade.

Real history does not make MORAL judgements.

Such judgements about the past are always left to the living.

All history can do is try to decribe the event and intuit the motives of the actors.

I believe that Balfour guaranteed Zionists the right to return to the state of Palestine because England was strapped for money during WWI and RothChild's influence over the banking community of England, the USA and much of Europe was so vast.

Should Balfour have done that?

Depends on whether or not you think ENGLAND would have survived without enough credit to conduct the First World War.


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Worthy to be recycled into good toilet paper too.
> ...


Nothing, actually. It's still being produced under the brand name "The UN Resolutions", of course.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

editec said:


> The question
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine.  But unfortunately, that's not what happened.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 23, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



Israelis has always occupied Isreal, the country of Isreal may have just recently recognized, but Israelis have always been in the country.


----------



## editec (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The question
> ...



Yup, that is true.

And Balfour also promised the King of Jordan that NO JEWISH state would be forged and that massive Jewish emigration to Palestine would not happen, too.

England both needed money AND England needed the Arabs to continue fight against  the Ottoman empire druing WWI.

Hence he promised diametrically opposing promises to two different groups of people.

And for a time (on and off, too I note) England tried to keep Balfours promise to the Arabs, by stopping emigration of European Jews to then Palstine.

Its a very confusing issue because ENGLAND's policies changed from time to time.

At times after WWI  the Zionists were pissed because England prevented emigration, other times the English pissed off the Arabs because they allowed it.

All of the above is well known history denied by no Arab or Israeli scholars.


----------



## toastman (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Worthy to be recycled into good toilet paper too.
> ...



I'm trying to say that Sherri didn't even contradict what Rocco said.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_

Oh yes, I understand the words are used.  



SherriMunnerlyn said:


> THEY have a right of self determination in the land under intl law and the UN has recognized that right for over 65 years. COUNTLESS UN documents on UNISPAL WEBSITE ADDRESS THIS RIGHT OF THE Palestinian people in the land of Palestine. INTL LAW  is what it is, noones dreams of Empire will change any of that!


*(QUESTION)*

What is it?  

Where is the right of self determination defined?
Where is sovereignty defined?

Are they related and how?

Who gave the Palestinians these undefined things and when?

How does what the Palestinians have today differ from what the people of any of the adjacent countries have?  Do the Palestinians that live in Jordan, Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia have these same rights?  Exactly what is it that those people can do that the people in Palestine cannot do?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh yes, I understand the words are used.
> 
> ...



THE right of self determination has been a part of intl law for decades.The Idea behind The Mandates was giving the indigenous peoples their right of self determination. THE issue is not what the law is or says, it is how to we get to a place where intl law is abided by. AS I said a few posts back, the UNISPAL website is filled with documents discussing this right of self determination. THERE are some historical documents that I have accessed before that go into lengthy discussions of intl law.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

lionboy,  _et al,_

Actually, the UN General Assembly, doesn't quite see it that way.



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > What, exactly, do you think is the practical application of sovereignty and the right of self-determination?  Where is that universally defined?   Do you think that I can just declare my quarter acre of property sovereign from the nation, independent under my right of self-determination?  I own it!
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In my application example of my little quarter acre, you are quite right, there is a question of authority.  However, in the case of Palestine, there is an authority and a source of recognition.



			
				UN History Document:  The Question of Palestine and the United Nations said:
			
		

> Forward:  Page iii
> 
> This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh yes, I understand the words are used.
> 
> ...


----------------------------------------------**In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly defined those rights as the right to self-determination without external interference, national independence and sovereignty, and the right to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced.      THIS appears on the title page to the UNISPAL website and describes the rights of the Palestinian peoples in the land of Palestine under intl law. NOW, after 1967 and even more so after The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on The Wall, we see that right of self determination of the Palestinian people expressed as referring to rights they have to control in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. This right encompasses sovereignty rights, as the language on the UN site itself makes clear.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 23, 2013)

THE ADvisory Opinion on The Wall also contains a discussion of this right of self determination of the Palestinian peoples.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy,  _et al,_

Now here is an issue.



loinboy said:


> The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine.  But unfortunately, that's not what happened.


*(COMMENT)*

Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:

What were the "rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine?"
In discussing this, one has to ask, what is the specifics of the violation in rights?  THEN! What is the scope and nature of the restitution and reparations necessary to make it right?  

When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty."  All of which are great ideals.  But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals.  They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals.  Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.

Are they not all products of the very same system.  Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?  

Exactly what is that something?  And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel (Mar 23, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> 
> While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them?  Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years.  I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.
> 
> Now of course the question is moot.  Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them.  However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?



When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities&#8230;there were no references to wars&#8230; The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media&#8230;

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

editec,  _et al,_



editec said:


> The question
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(ANSWER)*

Egypt:  Independence 28 February 1922 


First from UK protectorate status; 
Second from the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956;


Lebanon:  
After the fighting ended in Lebanon, General Charles de Gaulle visited the area. Under various political pressures from both inside and outside Lebanon, de Gaulle decided to recognize the independence of Lebanon. On November 26, 1941 General Georges Catroux announced that Lebanon would become independent under the authority of the Free French government. Elections were held in 1943 and on November 8, 1943 the new Lebanese government unilaterally abolished the mandate. The French reacted by throwing the new government into prison. In the face of international pressure, the French released the government officials on November 22, 1943 and accepted the independence of Lebanon.​
Syria:
Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but it wasn't until 1 January 1944 that it was recognised as an independent republic. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that had been formed during the mandate.​
Jordan:
With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations created the French Mandate of Syria and British Mandate Palestine. Approximately 90% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". In 1921, the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future King Abdullah I of Jordan, of the Hashemite family. Abdullah I continued to rule until a Palestinian Arab assassinated him in 1951 on the steps of the Mosque of Omar. At first he ruled "Transjordan", under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nations approve an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following this approval, the Jordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​
Iraq:
At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad, and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.

For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.

Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi of Iraq ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939.​
Kuwait:
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was financially crippled and the invading British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikdom under British protectorate".

On June 19, 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the then emir of Kuwait, Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah.​*SOURCE:* CIA World Factbook - The best country factbook available online | Find data about any contry's history, geography, politics, people, government, culture, economy and many more!



editec said:


> Obviously history cannot answer questions like "Should have...?" because such asking questions are above history's paygrade.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, well, it is alternative history time in the Twilight Zone.



editec said:


> Real history does not make MORAL judgements.  Such judgements about the past are always left to the living.  All history can do is try to decribe the event and intuit the motives of the actors.


*(COMMENT)*

May be!  But all history has some bias to it.



editec said:


> I believe that Balfour guaranteed Zionists the right to return to the state of Palestine because England was strapped for money during WWI and RothChild's influence over the banking community of England, the USA and much of Europe was so vast.
> 
> Should Balfour have done that?
> 
> Depends on whether or not you think ENGLAND would have survived without enough credit to conduct the First World War.


*(COMMENT)*

Another one of our contributors and friend (georgephillip) has mentioned this Rothschild Conspiracy on several occasions.  I don't completely understand it all, and thus am a little confused with the intrigue.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 23, 2013)

pbel said:


> Isaac Brock said:
> 
> 
> > As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?
> ...


Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world.  He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews.  Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel.  Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

pbel,  _et al,_

There is little question, that as an Occupation Force, the Israelis are found woefully wanting.  They are not the worst in history _(by a long shot)_, but not the best by the same margin.



pbel said:


> ...
> 
> But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.
> 
> They have turned our world up-side down.


*(COMMENT)*

By some measure, I tend to think that the 1967 War _(now nearly a half century ago)_ was the turning point.  There was a possibility then, that the Israelis could have turned the insurgency around by adopting a benevolent strategy with the Palestinians.  But that was not to be the case.

We will never know what could have been.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel (Mar 23, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Brock said:
> ...



You keep thinking that its a Jewish thing that motivates my posting quite often on these boards... Certainly after posting and seeing the untruthfulness by Jewish, and Right Wing Zionist posters and their Clannish behavior is revealing of their motivations...but I do understand their collective fears by their previous treatment in the war since the beginning of the Diaspora...Individually, I never met a Jew I disliked, and my relationship today with Jews is very good.

I guess I'm a Humanist at heart which inflates the emotion from injustice to people overwhelms me. 

Also I am a student of political science and often post on issues that affect America directly. The Middle East is where the action is fluid and the affect is great on America...Yes Jewish power is great in America, and I don't blame them for their collective influence, but America has become an Oligarchy, and Democracy has been subjugated to campaign funds and influence and Democracy is dying.

We need Campaign Finance reform!


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 23, 2013)

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...


Good for you. I would give you a pos rep but your little thumby thingies are gone.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> loinboy,  _et al,_
> 
> Now here is an issue.
> 
> ...


You cannot move into a neighborhood and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

toastman said:


> I'm trying to say that Sherri didn't even contradict what Rocco said.


I read all the relevent posts and I think she did.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Actually, the UN General Assembly, doesn't quite see it that way.
> 
> In my application example of my little quarter acre, you are quite right, there is a question of authority.  However, in the case of Palestine, there is an authority and a source of recognition.


UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding.



> _Myth #2  The United Nations created Israel.
> 
> The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.
> 
> ...


I hope this clears up any lingering confusion over 181.

I like you *RoccoR*, you're a good guy!

_We just disagree..._


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> loinboy,  _et al,_
> 
> Now here is an issue.
> 
> ...





Mr R----my impression of the insertion of   PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ALL----in 
the Balfour Declaration -----was something like  a British Formalism----

      as in    "be good chaps-----time for tea"

in fact none of the chaps in the  BRITISH EMPIRE  breakup---were  
"good"  -----but lots of countries got created


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

lionboy,  _et al,_

It is true, GA Resoultion 181(II)(29 Nov 47) is a non-binding agreement, but it is clear to me now, that you (and whoever wrote the your citation below) does not understand the difference between a Binding Resolution and a non-Binding Resolution.



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the UN General Assembly, doesn't quite see it that way.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

A "Binding Resolution" is a "decree" or a "command."  The parties in a "Binding" Resolution are enjoined to fulfill the requirements of the Resolution - there is no option to accept or reject.

A GA Resolution of the type GA 181(II) represents is an "Offer and Acceptance."  It is an agreement between one or more parties _(on one side)_ and the General Assembly _(on the other side)_.   Such a resolution does not command a member or other to do something, but allows them to do something within the scope of the resolution.

While this litigation argument you cited by has a point, the reality is much different.  If the GA Resolution 181(II) was not in play, it would not have been accepted by the GA when Israel used it to apply for its application for membership; which it did.  



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

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





loinboy said:


> _We just disagree..._



Yes, it would seem so!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> It is true, GA Resoultion 181(II)(29 Nov 47) is a non-binding agreement, but it is clear to me now, that you (and whoever wrote the your citation below) does not understand the difference between a Binding Resolution and a non-Binding Resolution.


That's not the impression I got.



RoccoR said:


> A GA Resolution of the type GA 181(II) represents is an "Offer and Acceptance."  It is an agreement between one or more parties _(on one side)_ and the General Assembly _(on the other side)_.   Such a resolution does not command a member or other to do something, but allows them to do something within the scope of the resolution.


181 was nothing more than a recommendation.

But since you brought up the scope of the resolution, why did Israel choose to disregard this portion of 181?



> _Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights
> 
> Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.
> 
> ...


Or do you think it's okay to pick and choose the parts of 181 you plan to follow?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 23, 2013)

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...


Regardless of what you say, Phillip, there are many posters who can pick up from what you post that it is a Jewish thing, and it is like you are trying to get the readers to hate the Jews and the Israelis because in your narrow mind they are the cause of all the problems in the world today.  Why not tell us, Phillip, when you were posting on a Middle East discussion forum, you only brought up your stuff against the Jews and Israel (the same things you have dragged over to this forum), posting your silly poems (even incorporating the names of Jewish posters who were no longer posting for some time (because they had the audacity to disagree with you), and toward the end of that board fighting with a Jewish policewoman constantly?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

lionboy,  _et al,_





loinboy said:


> 181 was nothing more than a recommendation.


*(COMMENT)*

Call it what you will.  It is Activated by either party.



			
				 Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS said:
			
		

> When the independence of *either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan,* have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.





loinboy said:


> But since you brought up the scope of the resolution, why did Israel choose to disregard this portion of 181?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.  

Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security.  Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state.  Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.

Occupation law may vary.  



			
				Article 64 said:
			
		

> The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.
> 
> *SOURCE:* International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.


Have you heard of the Nakba Law? 




RoccoR said:


> Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security.  Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state.  Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.


They are not resisting the state of Israel, they are resisting the occupation by Israel.

And people taking no part in hostilities, should not be treated as though they are.

Do you (or do you not) agree, that no one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?




RoccoR said:


> Occupation law may vary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't wanna really go there, do you?

Because there's a lot of "occupational law" that Israel doesn't abide by.

One of which is that an occupational force shall not transfer a portion of its population into an area under occupation.


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 23, 2013)

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...



I just find it extremely difficult to believe that you've never mentioned "*Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image.* "  around any of the Jews with whom you presume to have a ' very good relationship'.

When someone starts with the above canard ('Zionist control of the media'), that is someone who has accepted anti-Jewish propaganda as 'fact'.... and it's hardly ever worth even trying to pry open their minds on the topic.

I'm guessing that a) the ONLY Jews you know all happen to be 'ultra-left-wing' and/or b) you've never mentioned this 'Jewish media control' or the 'clannishness'  in front of them and/or 3) you are distorting, misrepresenting, or completely ignorant of those Jews' actual feelings towards you.


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 23, 2013)

Why don't you QUOTE the 'Nakba Law' , Loinie - since you brought it up?   
And note that it was passed WHEN?


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Why don't you QUOTE the 'Nakba Law' , Loinie - since you brought it up?
> And note that it was passed WHEN?


The Nakba Law discriminates against Palestinian's.



> _Chilling effect of the Nakba Law on Israel's human rights
> 
> "Nakba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic ), is a term used to describe the suffering of Palestinians, including the 700,000 who lost their homes, in the war that led to the establishment of the State of Israel. The short decision, just 19 pages, not only failed to address arguments that* the Nakba Law infringes on the Palestinian Arab minority's right to free speech and equality with regard to its historical memory*; it also refrained from dealing with the important argument raised by the petitioners: the chilling effect of the law on carrying out various activities for fear of financial sanctions. _


It was passed on March 23, 2011.



> _*On 23 March 2011, the Knesset approved, by a vote of 37 to 25, a change to the budget*, giving the Israeli Finance Minister the discretion to reduce government funding to any non-governmental organization (NGO) that organizes Nakba commemoration events._


Next question?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 23, 2013)

lionboy,  _et al,_



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In passing.  I really don't know how it is being applied.  One of my friends still active in the region mentioned that it is applicable to anyone holding an anti-Jewish State event.  This would include "self-hating Jews" as well.  So it is not really a discriminatory law _(that I am aware of)_.  But it is a domestic law.



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security.  Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state.  Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

That still poses a threat.



loinboy said:


> And people taking no part in hostilities, should not be treated as though they are.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct.  They should not be treated differently.  But as a potential threat, they should be treated all the same.



loinboy said:


> Do you (or do you not) agree, that no one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?


*(COMMENT)*

I agree, if they do not commit a crime, they should not be punished.  But to screen everyone that is a potential threat. 

It would be irresponsible, given the threats posed, the attacks made, and the stated goals cited by the Palestinian people and government _(all a clear pattern of past terrorist behavior)_,  to allow such a potential threat to go unchallenged; especially if a citizen was subsequently killed or injured as a result of reduced security measures.  Such a reduction in security countermeasures, in order to ease the difficulties and hardships on the population shielding the threat, and supporting the government with Chartered threats, would constitute gross negligence.



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Occupation law may vary.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Oh, you already know that I have conceded that there is _prima facie_ evidence that Israel is in violation of Article 49 of the GCIV and Article 8, Para 2b(viii), Rome Statues.  I agree on the basic facts.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 23, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh yes, I understand the words are used.
> 
> ...





> How does what the Palestinians have today differ from what the people of any of the adjacent countries have?



Well let's see.

They were thrown off their land and live under foreign military occupation.


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 23, 2013)

loinboy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you QUOTE the 'Nakba Law' , Loinie - since you brought it up?
> ...



So what you're screaming about is a law which permits the POSSIBILITY of reducing government funding to NGO's which organize 'Nakba' commemoration events........

This is like, what?  The US Government reserving the right to pull funding from PBS for organizing a 'Day of Mourning' for Native Americans on Columbus Day or Thanksgiving?

ALL the Israeli government is doing there, is reserving the right to decline to fund 'events' which characterize the founding of the State of Israel as a 'catastrophe'.....

And some people accuse Jewish Americans of 'dual loyalty' - well, how would you look at people publically MOURNING on the Fourth?


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 23, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> So what you're screaming about is a law which permits the POSSIBILITY of reducing government funding to NGO's which organize 'Nakba' commemoration events........
> 
> This is like, what?  The US Government reserving the right to pull funding from PBS for organizing a 'Day of Mourning' for Native Americans on Columbus Day or Thanksgiving?
> 
> ...


What they're doing, is criminalizing dissent.

Making it illegal to protest government policies.

And THAT, is fascism.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're screaming about is a law which permits the POSSIBILITY of reducing government funding to NGO's which organize 'Nakba' commemoration events........
> ...



Moderator Edit.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/annou...8-usmb-guidelines-of-conduct.html#post6790048



> "Zone 2": Political Forum / *Israel and Palestine Forum* / Race Relations/Racism Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. *Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame.* No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking threads.


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 24, 2013)

Please don't be so obtuse.  There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events.  It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.

ALL it does is give the appropriate government office the OPTION of reducing funding to such groups.  That's akin at worst to removing the tax-exempt status of 'churches' which get too involved in specific politics (ie, directing voting from the pulpit, as opposed to simply saying 'Vote').

If you want to call it 'dissent' for a group to set up with, I don't know - coffins and blood and 'skeleton masks' to UN-celebrate on the Fourth, fine.  It's perfectly legal.  It's also in bad taste, to say the least, and why should a government fund groups which regard that government's ESTABLISHMENT as a CATASTROPHE?

Would you be so enthusiastic about tax money paying for a group flying the Stars 'n' Bars  and making a show of mourning on the 9th of April?


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> lionboy,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is a book for you to read, Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy, written by Ben White Published April 8, 2012.

Looking at reviews, I read a little about the discriminatory laws. I read dozens of Israeli laws discriminate in favor of the Jewish majority. The Law Of Return provides Jews anywhere can immigrate to Israel yet most Palestinians in the state cannot live in the villages of their births. 70% of Israeli towns have admission committees, which determine who can live in the communities. The Present Absentee Law, Palestinians are forced from their villages and then the state confiscates their lands on the basis they are "absent" from their property, as the persons are "present" elsewhere in Israel. There is no Constitution. Why? I think it is because Israel does not want to have to allow equal rights to all and are avoiding confronting the inherent inconsistencies between being a Jewish State (that gives special rights to Jews) and a Democracy that exists for all her people.  There are many  laws designed to confiscate land for Jews only, such as the Emergency Land Requisition of 1949 and Article 125 of the Emergency Regulations of 1948. Systematic discrimination is described in areas such as education, budgetary allocations to Palestinian communities in the Galilee and petty discrimination at all levels of society. Just being an Arab disqualifies a person from serving in the military, except for the Druze minority. With these disqualifications, goes priviliges granted to soldiers and veterans. 

Ben White concludes there is no security basis for these widespread racist policies . Racism is racism, it cannot be white washed!

Palestinians in Israel do not have full citizenship rights, no matter how many thousands of years their ancestors may have lived in Israel, they are treated differently just because they are not Jewish! And this different treatment is the essence of what racism is!

The book can be purchased on Amazon.

Sherri


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Mar 24, 2013)

SherriMunnerlyn said:


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


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 24, 2013)

There is no question that Israel exists as refuge for jews from 
the racist oppression of filth and scum who support shariah 
---a legal form oppressive to jews and responsible for gross 
genocides   and as a refuge from the scum who spew the 
DEICIDE SHIT MYTH----a concept which has led to 
gross genocides------.   You made no point, sherri---other 
than to present a justification of Israel's  immigration and 
social policies which favor jews who survived the filth you 
advocate and which your kith and kin have promulgated 
over the past  1700 years


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Please don't be so obtuse.  There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events.  It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.
> 
> ALL it does is give the appropriate government office the OPTION of reducing funding to such groups.  That's akin at worst to removing the tax-exempt status of 'churches' which get too involved in specific politics (ie, directing voting from the pulpit, as opposed to simply saying 'Vote').
> 
> If you want to call it 'dissent' for a group to set up with, I don't know - coffins and blood and 'skeleton masks' to UN-celebrate on the Fourth, fine.  It's perfectly legal.  It's also in bad taste, to say the least, and why should a government fund groups which regard that government's ESTABLISHMENT as a CATASTROPHE?


The "law" is directed at a certain segment of the population that is non-jewish and that is discrimination.  The "law" is being used as a club against human rights groups in Israel.  Citizenship is being denied to any non-jews who refuse to acknowledge Israel as a "jewish state".  This "law" and others like it, are making it illegal to protest the government of Israel.  It basically says,_ "You either goose-step in the direction of current party politics, or face retribution."_



MHunterB said:


> Would you be so enthusiastic about tax money paying for a group flying the Stars 'n' Bars  and making a show of mourning on the 9th of April?


What happened on April 9th?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't be so obtuse.  There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events.  It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.
> ...





last I heard new citizens of the USA----are REQUIRED TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 
TO THE USA     thus giving up the right to protest by moving to alabama 
and demanding secession


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh yes, I understand the words are used.
> 
> ...





> *UN Charter definition*
> 
> By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,* all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference,* their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
> 
> ...



In every one of your posts you try to justify the denial of the Palestinian's rights by saying these foreigners did this and those foreigners did that. *Foreigners*,* foreigners,* *foreigners!*

What part of *without external interference,* confuses you?


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> last I heard new citizens of the USA----are REQUIRED TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE
> TO THE USA     thus giving up the right to protest by moving to alabama
> and demanding secession


We should sell Alabama to Mexico.

Those hayseed dickboys give this country a bad name.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 24, 2013)

EXTERNAL   is defined as OUTSIDE OF......
   There persons who established the state of Israel---
     LIVED on the land which they established as that state. 
     The persons who stole  east jerusalem from its 
     jewish inhabitants were persons who did not
     LIVE in Jerusalem-----they were  EXTERNAL  
     people.    The people who took possession of 
     HEBRON using tinsy's favored method of slitting 
     the throats of babies were---in general---persons 
     EXTERNAL----who did not live in Hebron


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> EXTERNAL   is defined as OUTSIDE OF......
> There persons who established the state of Israel---
> LIVED on the land which they established as that state.
> The persons who stole  east jerusalem from its
> ...



Indeed, and the Zionists imported those settlers by the boatload for that purpose.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > EXTERNAL   is defined as OUTSIDE OF......
> ...




what purpose?      there were some boatloads of people who were 
escaping from the    filth of   ISA-RESPECTING genocide   ----referring 
to them as 'IMPORTS'    would be something like suggesting that  
Israel  IMPORTED ----the sudanese christians who now clog the 
streets of tel aviv.    ------being survivors of both genocide 
by isa-respecters in   sudan and in egypt.     There are 100s of thousands 
of   BENGALIS----from  EAST BENGAL----clogging the streets of  
KOLKATA -----did kolkata IMPORT them or are they escapees from 
ISA-RESPECTER genocide in the erstwhile   EAST PAKISTAN?

as to Hebron and Jerusalem----its core population of jews were 
of communities that had resided there for centuries   -----before 
being used to entertain you by getting their throats slit


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



He's giving you indisputable information with links and you're giving him 'Tinnie Jibberish'. 
YOu lost the argument. Go home !!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Why they left their previous homes is irrelevant to this issue.

The important part is why they were imported. They were not in Palestine to join the people and become a part of Palestine. They lived as a separate entity in settlements.



> as to Hebron and Jerusalem----its core population of jews were
> of communities that had resided there for centuries   -----before
> being used to entertain you by getting their throats slit



Many Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem, etc. were uprooted by Israel's war. They have the right to return to their homes.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The indisputable information with links are mine.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



liar !


----------



## pbel (Mar 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Here we go again; Many Jews unconditionally support Israel by far. If you can't see the connection on the Cultural Form of Domination that the media posses on society to form public opinion, and who owns it, then you are a fool...Of course I've discussed this conflict with some of my Jewish friends...They respect my honesty, and I've told them what I post on these boards...In the long-run Israel can never hope to defeat the Horde of 1.4 billion and rising...its that simple...Israel needs to share Jerusalem, to which my lawyer replied: They will never give up Jerusalem...

And to your endless stupid accusations of anti-Semitism when you have nothing to add...read the words that I post, don't rely on your imagination, which was created in Hicksville West Virgini.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't be so obtuse.  There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events.  It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.
> ...


A history buff asking a neophyte about history? Unbelieveable!


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




   The jews in Hebron were uprooted in 1929   when muslims with the 
INSPIRATION OF ALLAH-----attacked the completely unarmed religious 
community there and to the delight of tinsy SLIT THE THROATS OF 
BABIES        The jews in Jerusalem were  attacked in  1947---murdered 
and raped and place in a  STARVATION SIEGE that killed many----
Tinsy    you grow more nauseting by the second----BUT INTERESTING. 

I agree that in a good world  ALL PEOPLE GET TO GO BACK   with 
FULL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY     to the places from which they came.  
The present day   "medina"    having been a jewish city for 
more than 1000 years can be claimed by  yemeni and ethiopian 
jews  ------(the places they to which they  tended to flee the
 genocidal filth that took place there 1400 years ago)----and the stench 
of shariah would have to be  completely discarded ----GREAT IDEA TINSY

I AM ALL FOR IT


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I thought you would never get there for a moment.



P F Tinmore said:


> > *UN Charter definition*
> >
> > &#8220;By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,* all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference,* their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.&#8221;
> >
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You will notice that the Palestinians declined to accept and independent state, as offered by the UN General Assembly, in GA Resolution 181(II).  They had the right _(of self-determination)_ and they _(determined to)_ rejected the offer.  _[(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]_  The Arab/Palestinian was wanted more than they were allotted by the UN GA.  And when they could not get it, tried _(not once, not twice, but three times)_ to take what they were not allotted by force, with the assistance of external force and interference _(Armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt)_.  

As far as "foreigners" are concerned, this is a Red Herring.  The previous Sovereign Power over Palestine agreed to the National Home and the immigration.  Nothing associated with the immigration can be considered improper as it was part and parcel, an agreed upon consequence.  

Also notice that you are trying to retroactively apply the 1970 Resolution to events that happened in 1948, two decades before the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) was adopted.  Even if we discount that space-time travel thing, nothing in the Resolution 2625 (XXV) changes the functions, power, and authority of the GA and Trustee Council in the administration of a Trusteeship (Mandate) over the Ottoman relinquished territory.  Nothing about "external interference" restricts the UN GA over its responsibilities and duties in that regard under the charter.  The UN Charter/Covenant, the Treaty, and the Mandate, all work together.  If anything, the greater violator of Resolution 2625 (XXV) has been on the Arab/Palestinian side (retroactively speaking).  It was they that initiated that sent border crossing armies into Israel on multiple occasions.  After all, GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) is all about principles that settle disputes by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace and security do not require the intervention of 5 Arab Armies.

I find it rather amusing that the Palestinian try to use the very western laws and concepts that establish and record these principles, yet ignore the basic underlying factors that caused the dispute.  The Arab argues that the Jewish did not have the right to self-determination  _[(1) established a sovereign and independent state;]_; that being exclusive to the Arab, and attempt to use some creative accounting to demonstrate that Israel got more more out of the Mandate than did the Arab; even to the point of conveniently forgetting that Jordan was 75% of the original mandate; that became an independent Arab State.  _(We call that fraud.)_

The Arab/Palestinian originally disagreed with the entire idea of a Jewish national home in the region.  They wanted it all for themselves.  Everything that follows is merely fallout and rationalization of their goal to "oppose the entire concept of a Jewish national home" in the region.  All this nonsense about self-determination, eternal interference, apartheid and segregation, entanglements with the charter, treaty, mandate, occupation ---- all this is nothing but to cover the the inordinate desire to possess that which was not theirs to begin with; this being the behavior of the Arab Palestinian.  They simply want it all, and think of the land as exclusively theirs. 

The Arab/Palestinian, and their Persian friends, all have the same preliminary objective, to create such turmoil and chaos in the region, as to destabilize Israel; simply because in their extreme desire for more than one's proper share --- they want it all.  At least Hamas and Hezbollah are honest about it and don't try to use subterfuge in the matter.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a case for recompense, restitution, and reparations? ----  They have, probably, a very good case in some instances.

Again, having said that, do the Palestinians have a cause of action on the matter of territorial dispute?  Clearly they do.​
But it must also be remembered that it was the Arab/Palestinian that immediately jumped to the use of force as a first solution, and not the Israeli.  And it have been the Arab/Palestinian that has continued the path to armed hostilities and aggression as the primary option --- and not the Israeli.  There is certainly some restitution due the Israeli for the hostile actions and horrific events it has had to endure during the term of this dispute.

Both sides have committed grievous errors.  Neither side has clean hands.  Both sides have suffered.  Both sides will need time to heal.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

Like a chess match with Tinmore, eh Rocco?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I thought you would never get there for a moment.
> 
> ...



WOW, you have all of Israel's propaganda crap down pat.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Wow!!! I never knew UN documents were Israeli propaganda!! Will wonders never cease?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Specifically, what are you referring to?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Rocco's facts. Check!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Name one or two.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??



Sure, read what?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


It appears that Rocco has the real scoop and you have "Arab facts" from your employer.  Don't worry, Tinnie, by now I think the readers realize that you will never accept a country called Israel even though there is such a country.

Check!


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie up to his usual nonsense lol... Can't you read Tinnnie ??
> ...


We've been discussing Ladies Home Journal, Abu?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Really, like what?


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm



Why? Because I can't answer the questions that you people have not been asking.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie has his back to the wall hahaha. Look at him squirm
> ...



Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said


Give me 3 specific examples of what you're talking about.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....

Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....
> 
> Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong


It has nothing to do with "my" homework.

You made a claim, back it up!


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....
> ...



YOu made a claim about me as well, back it up !


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> YOu made a claim about me as well, back it up !


I didn't make a claim!

I asked you to provide the evidence to back up the one you made about *Tinny*.


----------



## MHunterB (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't be so obtuse.  There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events.  It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....
> 
> Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong



If you think I am wrong, perhaps you should be the one justifying your position.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> If you think I am wrong, perhaps you should be the one justifying your position.


Exactly!

He claimed you haven't disproven anything *RoccoR *said.



> _Quote: Originally Posted by *toastman*
> Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said_


I asked for his citations to back that claim up and until he does, that is nothing but a baseless accusation.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Lets start with post #211...
> 
> YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence


What the hell do you call this?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Lets start with post #211...
> 
> YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence



Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Lets start with post #211...
> ...



Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination  and such ?


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


> Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination  and such ?


He asked what determines self-determination, *Tinny* provided the answer.

That one was not about agreement.

You get 1/2 point for at least trying to back up your claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 24, 2013)

toastman said:


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



He has been ducking self determination. Basically he is trying to justify the denial of Palestinian self determination.


----------



## toastman (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Proof ?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Is it our fault, Tinnie, that you are adverse to the truth in Rocco's posts?  I think any reasonable viewer can ascertain that Rocco has studied up on this issue from legitimate sources (it certainly seems like it knows more than all of us).    However, look at you (a true spokesman for Hamas).  You keep on babbling that Israel is not a country.  In your mind you think your fellow "Palestinian" Arabs own all the land.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 24, 2013)

loinboy;  _et al,_

I do remember this.  And I believe I responded in Post #223 





RoccoR said:


> ...





loinboy said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Lets start with post #211...
> ...



This is not an image of text from the UN Charter, but comes from the "Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law." [http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142 the Diakonia web-site is a Swedish NGO for international development cooperation, not a sanction UN site or any subdivision thereto.]

This is the text from the Charter.  The Charter uses the phrase "self-determination" twice in the entire Charter (all 19 Chapters).  



			
				Excerpts from the UN Charter:  Keyword "self-determination" said:
			
		

> CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1
> 
> The Purposes of the United Nations are:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Swedish NGO IHL (Diakonia) does have lawyers on staff.  The express there opinions.  But don't mistake them for citing an official position.  They weave the law just like a carpet to fit their agenda. 

It is very difficult to discuss this topic in a balanced and unbiased way.  Even I, as hard as I may try to avoid it, show some signs of bias and pre-registered agenda.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 24, 2013)

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

I have never stated that the Palestinians should, have been or are denied the right of self-determination.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

What I have said, is that the Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination, and declined to establish a state.  

I've also said that the right of self-determination does not extend to the conduct of offensive campaigns, terrorism, and insurrection against an Occupation Force that fought against the Palestinians supported by the various Arab Armies.  That the Palestinians do not have the right to conduct any terrorist act - nor - do they have any justification under any circumstance  _A/RES/67/99_.  

I've also said that the Palestinians  have not attempted to achieve regional co-operation in solving territorial problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character;  and have not promoted and encouraged respect for human rights towards the Israeli or extended peaceful efforts in the prosperity of the region.  

But do I believe that the Palestinian has the right to cause regional havoc, conduct regional and international terrorist attacks, to promote wars, and further a general campaign of violence --- *no* under any circumstance.  And there is absolutely no justification that can be put forth that can demonstrate some legal basis for that.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I have never stated that the Palestinians should, have been or are denied the right of self-determination.
> 
> ...



That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners. It is true that it was their right to reject that offer as any other people in the world would do.



> I've also said that the right of self-determination does not extend to the conduct of offensive campaigns, terrorism, and insurrection against an Occupation Force that fought against the Palestinians supported by the various Arab Armies.  That the Palestinians do not have the right to conduct any terrorist act - nor - do they have any justification under any circumstance  _A/RES/67/99_.
> 
> I've also said that the Palestinians  have not attempted to achieve regional co-operation in solving territorial problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character;  and have not promoted and encouraged respect for human rights towards the Israeli or extended peaceful efforts in the prosperity of the region.
> 
> But do I believe that the Palestinian has the right to cause regional havoc, conduct regional and international terrorist attacks, to promote wars, and further a general campaign of violence --- *no* under any circumstance.  And there is absolutely no justification that can be put forth that can demonstrate some legal basis for that.



The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from the Zionist attacks. Remember it was not the Palestinians who went to Europe to attack the Zionists.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 25, 2013)

Tinnies description of the fact that jews were subjected to
genocide in palestine at the hands of both christians 
and muslims----and the fact that they were subjected to 
episodes of genocides in lands dominated by muslims in 
the middle east and in by christians in europe---- and the 
fact that when the OTTOMANS relaxed laws which restricted 
land ownership by jews in palestine that jews began 
to migrate BACK to palestine and buy land there as 
AN ATTACK BY EUROPEANS ON 'palestinians' 

    I am not surprised      The real issue here is the loss of
 prerequisite which no people relinquishes happily.   

When the blacks of the south were freed from slavery --
--tinsy types founded the Ku Klux Klan. 

When jews in palestine were granted the right to buy land---
and jews from muslim dominated countries began migrating
 out of those lands along with european jews 
TO PALESTINE------the concept of  
UPPITY JEWS  grew rancorous in the   tinsy type mind 
and has remained so since------relieved only by those 
fond memories in the tinsy world of  infant throat slitting 
pogroms based on the same justifications that  tinsy 
type KLANNERS  lynched 12 year old black kids

You are not alone,   tinsy----there are still people in 
the  NORTHERN states of the USA   who believe 
they were  "invaded"    by blacks from the south 

I grew up in a town full of people like you----it was 
economic reasons that broke down its  "restricted"  
status that prior to   about  1950  kept both the  
blacks and the jews from   "INVADING"


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> _That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners._


In memorable words of Winnie Churchill "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.". Let's say, arabs foreigners decided to grab it all by fighting it out and got their asses stomped in the process. Since then palistanians exceled in one thing and one thing only - bitching and lies.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 25, 2013)

docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > _That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners._
> ...





  Doc    have some compassion for tinsy----he is very TRUTHFULLY  expressing 
the ummah POV----the problem is a matter of POETIC LICENSE      He does not 
want to say-----al muslimeen-----refused to accept   kaffirin khalbin in dar al islam
    (well---I tried, dont argue the grammar or vocabulary with me----but I am 
sure you get my drift)     now--there were some jews they could accept----
generally those who they believed that could manage to shit and fart upon---
The situation is nothing new-----the Ku Klux Klan did not want to kill 
ALL BLACKS-----just the ones that were not slaves


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 25, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> loinboy;  _et al,_
> 
> I do remember this.  And I believe I responded in Post #223
> 
> ...


Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 25, 2013)

loinboy,  _et al,_

I think there is some confusion here.



loinboy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy;  _et al,_
> ...


*(OPEN APOLOGY)*

I personally apologize if my commentary, in any way, appeared to be an attack on your character or integrity, and submit that such an interpretation on your character or integrity would be fallacious.

My intent was to make a distinction between the sources I cited and the source you cited; including the fact that the narrative has a comparative difference.  One being a direct quotation from an official source, where the other cites an official source but is an interpretative argument.

Again, there was no personal attack on your reputation intended; and I appeal to the discussion group not to interpret it as such.

Very Sincerely,
R


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

Tinnie, why didn't the Palestinians create a state before the Jews showed up ?


----------



## Wiseacre (Mar 25, 2013)

Please guys - stick to the topic and avoid the insults that have no content.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 25, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> Please guys - stick to the topic and avoid the insults that have no content.



  ~~~ party-pooper~~~~


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinnie, why didn't the Palestinians create a state before the Jews showed up ?



The mandate was supposed to help them do that.

But Britain fucked up big time then cut and run.


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie, why didn't the Palestinians create a state before the Jews showed up ?
> ...



Then blame Britain . 

Why wasnt there a Palestinian state created when Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled the shithole terrorist headquarters we call Gaza


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

toastman said:


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



There was.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


There was? Where did it go?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



It is under foreign, military occupation.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Well, Tinnie, I know you don't believe Churchill and other British officials who were stationed in the area at the time who said that the Arabs came in droves from the poor surrounding countries.  I happen to believe what they said since I see what is happening here with many poor crossing our Southern border for jobs and there are plenty of poor Muslims who have moved to Europe, the U.S. and Canada for jobs.  Now if the Arabs came in droves, can I consider them foreigners to the area.  Maybe your own older relatives came from Egypt and kept telling  you that the family lived in Israel for hundreds and hundreds of years.  Now if Tinnie thinks that there was a country called Palestine when Egypt and Jordan controlled the territories, I know that Tinnie will be happy to tell us who was the president or prime minister of this country at the time and what was their currency and some of the laws on their books.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



What is the relevance to all of that?

Israel says that it cannot occupy territory that is not a state.

What state was it when it was occupied by Jordan and Egypt?


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You're telling me there was a Palestinian state between when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank before 1967 ?


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


The relevance to all of that is that you keep claiming that all the inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine have been living there for generations when in fact they were mainly refugees frrom Syria Jordan and Lebanon. How bout them apples ?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


How long and when has it ever been a sovereign state with a capital, government, ambassadors, etc?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Do you have some immigration stats to prove that claim?

Now how about that Jordan and Egypt occupation?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Not necessary.


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Tinnie lied again


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

toastman said:


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



An independent state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Israel is listed between Ireland and Italy in the list. I can't seem to locate Palestine. Was it an omission?


Capitals of Every Country - Country Capital Cities


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Still ducking that Jordan and Egypt occupation thing, I see.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Still ducking that Israel is an actual country, Tinnie?  In Tinnie's mind, there is no country at all that is known as Israel.  All the land belongs to his fellow Arabs.  Tinnie probably has a map of the Middle East hanging up in his home which doesn't even show Israel.   I wonder if special globes of the world are made in the Muslim world which omit Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Post a map of Israel inside its international borders.

BTW, how about that Jordan and Egypt occupation?


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What about the occupation?why didn't Jordan or Egypt help create an official Palestinians state when they occupied Gaza and the West Bank


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 25, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Palestine was already recognized as a state by five other states by then.

What about that occupation thing?


----------



## toastman (Mar 25, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Palestine was absolutely not an official state when Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Didn't Israel say that it could not occupy the West Bank because it was not a state?

What state was it when it was occupied by Jordan and Egypt?


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

So you're agreeing that Palestinw was not an official state when Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> So you're agreeing that Palestinw was not an official state when Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers?



You need to reread my post. You are missing the point.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > So you're agreeing that Palestinw was not an official state whentg Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers?
> ...



You said Palestine was an official state when Egypt and Jordan were the occupiers. Are you retracting that statement?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



No.

You are not addressing my question.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You're the one not addressing my question. Prove to me that Palestine was an official state when Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



According to Israel's terms, a territory cannot be occupied. It must be a state.

The League of Nations determined that it was a state.

Palestine was recognized as a state by five other countries in 1948.

Palestine was admitted to the Arab league as a member state in 1979.

Palestinians defended their country before and after the 1948 occupation.

And besides that, the existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states. Recognition is purely a political move.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


What abunch of baloney. PALESTINE WAS NOT a state theb liar.

So lets assume Palestine was a state between 1948 and 1967. Why were Egypt and Jordan Occupying it.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Yeah, how about Jordan and Egypt?  I sure wish you would tell us why the so-called Palestinians weren't clamoring for statehood when those two countries were administering the area.  I would imagine that everyone by now has realized that they have never seen Tinnie mention that the Hashemites of Saudi Arabia received 78% of the mandate.  With all the so-call Palestinians living there, one would think that Tinnie would be calling for Jordan to give back the land.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



What did Jordan or Egypt offer the Palestinians ?? Nothing !

What did Israel offer the Palestinians ?? See 2000 camp david accords and Ehud Olmert offer..
The Palestinians could have had their country on a silver fuckin platter but they refused.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



So all of above including Israel are liars. How about the 138 countries that recently voted to recognize the already existing Palestine. Palestine is more qualified to be a state than Israel.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


I guess Tinnie, with roots in the area, would say a thing like that.  After all, he doesn't recognize that Israel actually exists.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Thank you for avoiding my question and deflecting the conversation.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



He's a moron


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 26, 2013)

He's not a moron----he has finally reached the goal 
of this thread---he has  >>>>

      DECLARED DIXIELAND A COUNTRY 

                      (~~~la la la ---oh ---i wish i was 
                                 in the land of dixie........
                                         ~~~~la la la la)


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


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



ya know, P F, jos, sherri, george, BIK, pbel, etc. why put up with these people and their argument by insult. you really ccould be posting in the CDZ.

i would hate to flood that forum with posts about israel/palestine, but maybe the admins would be prompted to start another forum on israel/palestine without all the flaming etc. a "clean palestine/israel" forum. you know very few of the zionists, if any, could exist in a no vulgarity, no insult forum.

just an idea. let's all start posting there...and if you do, be careful. it is easy to slip.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> you know very few of the zionists, if any, could exist in a no vulgarity, no insult forum.


Ain't that the truth!


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

loinboy said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > you know very few of the zionists, if any, could exist in a no vulgarity, no insult forum.
> ...




yes. you and some others already post there. i think we should just leave these people to their propaganda, slurs, and insanity. even the more reasonable ones crumble when confronted.

their problem is they are tryinbg to deend things that are indefensible, and doing so with a ridiculous double standard.

all they really have to do is derail legitimate threads and they get sluffed of to no mans land. nothing made me more aware of this and more angry than my post about basicaally seperation of church and state, our taxpayer monies being used for a ridiculous witch hunt and vendetta by jews against catholics, and encouraging my country to insist upon a sovreign state open their files to our government turn into a catholic bashing session.

my only reluctance in posting in the CDZ is i am afraid to overwhelm it with issues regarding palestine/israel...and related issues such as islam, judaism, and christianity if need be...

for instance, try to justify the USA insisting it be recognisedd as a christian state....or a better analogy would be a caucasion, white european, christian state. i wonder how that would fly?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 26, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by reabhloideach  
you know very few of the zionists, if any, could exist in a no vulgarity, no insult forum.


   What is a  "zionist"  ,    PAPIST PIMP????     I have read 
the shit written by the papist pimps and whores  -----
over the centuries --and discovered that the papist perverts 
use the term  "zionist"  in a manner so negative that
 it is made to seem obscene by your catechism sluts.  
Thus your charge that   "ZIONISTS"  are vulgar is actually
 idiotic----the term  ZIONISM  is not a negative 
nor is   "ZIONIST"
---it is the filth  mick catechism sluts who render that 
which is noble-----obscene.
That which is termed  "vulgar"   is a matter of semantics.    
 That which IS vulgar is the stuff that emanated 
from the   PIMP OF ROME   who enacted the ethos and even 
the "legalities"   under which  baptized  adolf abu ali-
--THRIVED
ie   the  legalities of canon law -----which rendered the 
INQUISITION    "HOLY"   do form the basis of the 
NUREMBURG LAWS  which rendered  Auschwitz  "LEGAL"  

seems to  me---time to give up that  
"CANONIZED"   word-----it stinks and recognize the 
OBSCENITY  that has been derived from  "CANON LAW"


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

irosie91 said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by reabhloideach
> you know very few of the zionists, if any, could exist in a no vulgarity, no insult forum.
> 
> 
> ...



Of course they use the term Zionist in a negative way. This method derives from Naz\i ideology. "Any movement involving the Joooos is EVIL"

But what more do you expect from Seal, he acts vulgar at times and then asks for sympathy . How bout that eh Seal ?? Those damn evil Zionists, eh Seal ?????


----------



## patrickcaturday (Mar 26, 2013)

> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by reabhloideach
> ...





*Your post Rose is just verification of what you say Seal said. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by reabhloideach
> ...




way too funny, roudy. now saying "zionist" is anti-semitic.

this is exactly why i am encouraging people to post in the CDZ...what a ridiculous post.

look, i have seen zionists in the CDZ beore. they run off with their tails tucked between their legs.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> Of course they use the term Zionist in a negative way. This method derives from Naz\i ideology. "Any movement involving the Joooos is EVIL"
> 
> But what more do you expect from Seal, he acts vulgar at times and then asks for sympathy . How bout that eh Seal ?? Those damn evil Zionists, eh Seal ?????


So what are you saying?

That you people are never vulgar and rude?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


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


I wonder if Seal would have enjoyed the M E forum if he wasn't able to make up all his characters and other nonsense he posted.  It appears that he is changing his tactics on this board trying to make the readers think he is such a good, reasonable guy, but I don't think all the readers are falling for it.  I think the readers are smart enough to realize that many of the posters whom Seal admires just plain hate the Jews.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I'm not Roudy....
Still sipping on the Whisky, eh Sealie boy ?


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



And I've met a lot of Leprechauns before:


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



way i figure it, if roudy and you think two irsih catholics are the same people, i can go with the flow and think two, ignorant, stupid, vulgar, whiney jews are the same people.

still counting your usurious scam profits, roudy boy.


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



and i have met more usurious, swarthy, hook nosed, shylocks than you have met  leipreachans.

isn't this fun?


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



what i do is treat people with courtesy and respect initially, and beyond. however, at some point and on occasion, i will give better than i get...but i will  never initiate the aggro.

if those initially dispensing the slurs happen to be jews, so be it. there are plenty of gentile zionists i respond to negatively as well, you stupid ass. you are the one who focuses on jews, not i.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



There you go Seal, show us your true colors hahahaha.

Hey, its not the Zionists fault you couldnt find the pot o' gold hahahaha. Drunk Irish fuck bahahahaha


----------



## sealadaigh (Mar 26, 2013)

toastman said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



my true colours are to occasionally fuck witth asses who issue ethnic slurs and the like, no matter who the slur is directed against, and to fight fire with fire on those occasions when i choose not to ignore their stupid comments.

you qualify. just why and how often do you think you can pull these "drunk paddy" slurs without a response. do you think you are special?

you are beginning to bore me, jew boy.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

Then put me on ur ignore list if i bore u lol.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 26, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


You really are not fooling anyone who has seen you in action on other forums over the years..  If it makes you happy to think you are fooling everyone here, so be it.  I think the readers can see just from Seal's post that he can't stand to see a non Jew stick up for the Zionists or for that matter any Jews.  He wants us to have the same mind set as he does.


----------



## toastman (Mar 26, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



He compares Zionists to Nazis and then cries for sympathy after..he also never contributes to the topic of the thread. What would we so without Sealie boy on this forum


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



The real question is who has the right to have a state inside Palestine's international borders?

Is it the Palestinians who are native to the terrritory?

Or is it the foreigners from Europe?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



The people who lived in the British empire had a right to separate from the British empire and  form countries -----the jews of palestine did just that     Jews have lived in Palestine 
for more then  3500 years-----and have also lived in neighboring lands which were invaded 
by the dogs of arabia   ---and were there subjected to genocide ----the remnant formed 
the country which is,  TODAY,   Israel      Of course that remnant has the right to full 
compensation for the  oppression and genocide inflicted upon them  first by  the "holy 
roman empire"   and later the filth and dogs from arabia.    Islamo nazi pigs 
like to pretend that MOST of the jews who migrated to paletine when the 
OTTOMANS   mitigated the filth and stench and oppression of racist 
laws  which deprived jews of their  WORLD RECOGNIZED "holy" HOMELAND---
as being  'from europe'     In fact most were not---many were far more  "indigenous'' 
than the spawn of the  ROMAN EMPIRE brutal invaders and the later brutal 
invaders from arabia ---others were escapees from lands that they inhabited 
but which has ALSO been invaded by the brutal oppressive spawn of 
the  "holy roman empire" ----and the dogs of arabia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2013)

irosie91 said:


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





> ---the jews of palestine did just that Jews have lived in Palestine
> for more then 3500 years--



That is true. There were native Jews living in Palestine. Nobody has said that they have no right to live in Palestine.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 27, 2013)

Isaac Brock said:


> As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine.  With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?



It was not. 
If it had been created in an unoccupied place or been invited somewhere, I see no problem but it started life with terrorism and a driving out of the people that were living there.
That was always going to be a big problem.

Regardless of your opinions regarding Israel, fact remain it started as a terrorist nation, stealing land to establish itself.
That is a matter of recorded history, not an opinion.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, an interesting question.



P F Tinmore said:


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



*(COMMENT)*

Suppose, for a moment, that at the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire survived, or - at least - did not relinquish the Middle East.  

What then, would be the status of Palestine?
What then, would prohibit the Ottoman from creating a Jewish National Home and /or State?
Who established the "international borders" of this state called Palestine?  When was the state recognized?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, an interesting question.
> 
> ...



I don't think that speculation would have any relevance.

Two separate states were created when Palestine and Jordan were separated in 1922. That was the final border to be defined.

A state exists independent from the recognition of other states.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

All part of the same Mandate.  The British Mandate of Jordan did not end until 1946.  Until then, while the Mandatory did grant increasing levels of greater autonomy, it was still part of the Palestine Mandate.



			
				Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. said:
			
		

> Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
> 
> SOURCE:  Jordan - History - The Making of Transjordan



At least, so says the HM, The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.



P F Tinmore said:


> I don't think that speculation would have any relevance.
> 
> Two separate states were created when Palestine and Jordan were separated in 1922. That was the final border to be defined.
> 
> A state exists independent from the recognition of other states.



*(COMMENT)*

Yes, sometimes thought experiments are too complicated.  But then, so is alternative history.  

The separation between Jordan and Israel is outlined in the Treaty which refers back to the "Mandate."



			
				 Article 3 - International Boundary said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...



Under the Treaty of Sevres, that which was to become known as Palestine --- was specificed by the Treaty "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  

*SOURCE:*  SECTION VII.  SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE ARTICLE 95,  Sevres Treaty: Part III​
In 1922, and under Mandate, Trans-Jordan has not yet been created, --- it was not until  May 15, 1923, that the UK (as Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Trans-Jordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah (the future King).  This effectively cut the issue of Palestine down by 75%.  As under the Mandate, gradual levels of autonomy we to be fostered and encouraged.

This is all part of the the same story and the same Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> All part of the same Mandate.  The British Mandate of Jordan did not end until 1946.  Until then, while the Mandatory did grant increasing levels of greater autonomy, it was still part of the Palestine Mandate.
> 
> ...



And the mandate left Palestine in the same legal position it had before it was before Britain was assigned to Palestine.


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


One question, Barrister. Is that mandate still in effect and valid?


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 27, 2013)

Calm down folks-----Tinnie has decided that there is a country 
named  "palestine"----which was created in 1922---and nothing 
can happen to change that fact because tinnie decided.
The good news for the muslims of the world is that once 
the British Empire broke up ---the LEGAL STATUS OF THE 
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT as a   MOGHUL CALIPHATE---
was restored----it the Indian subcontinent reverted to its 
FORMER LEGAL STATUS

Even better----the  IBERIAN PENNINSULA 
---actually reverted to its former LEGAL 
STATUS  as an ISLAMIC CALIPHATE----
with the battle of  ANDALUSIA


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 27, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



No, it abandoned all its goals and cut and ran.

It left accomplishing nothing except trashing Palestine and creating a never ending war.

Palestine was still there and the natives still had their right to self determination without external interference.


----------



## member (Mar 27, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> *"The real question is who has the right to have a state inside Palestine's international borders?  Is it the Palestinians who are native to the terrritory?  Or is it the foreigners from Europe?"*



*PALESTINE*


I was staring 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 at the map again. 










_you can understand how the Palestinians feel_.  They did live there as well _(MBJ)_.  But forming a suicide bombing gangto gruesome of a way to-get your point across.



Too bad *"PALESTINE"* is not going to be _one whole place_. 

Gaza here, WB there.








Maybe the Palestinians should _move out of the gaza strip_ and move NORTHEAST, near the syria-lebanon border...above the WB, so you can be "_one whole place_" instead of split up...

they have moving companies in ...the Gaza Strip don't they ?


----------



## toastman (Mar 27, 2013)

Palestine is the worlds greatest invention


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



*The right to self determination without external interference.*

Israel supporters generally duck this issue.

It is the natives who have the right to self determination not foreigners.

External (foreign) interference that denies this right to the natives is illegal.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Palestine is the worlds greatest invention


That comment should settle who is trying to wipe out who?


----------



## Indofred (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Palestine is the worlds greatest invention



Show me a map with Israel on it. It'll either be 2,000 years old be dated after 1946.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Indofred said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine is the worlds greatest invention
> ...



Where's Palestine ?


----------



## Indofred (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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























They seem to have missed Israel off all the maps. Should we spank their naughty bums?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The British Mandate is short for the British Mandate for Palestine.

The rest of us knew that.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Ah, so the British controlled the land, not the Fakestinians. Thanks for clarifying that


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Indofred said:


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








Wheres Palestine ??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The mandate was assigned to Palestine to render assistance and advise. It owned no land and had no sovereignty.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Link ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Interesting. Israel has no borders on that map. All it has are Palestine's borders and the 1949 armistice lines.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Nope. Those are ISraels borders. Palestine doesn't exist. IT could have, had they accepted the partition plan


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Nope. I am right and you are wrong.

Look it up.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Where's PAlestine on that map ?


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

There ya go

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> There ya go
> 
> Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The armistice demarcation line was drawn for the most part along* the 1922 international border between Egypt and Palestine*, except near the Mediterranean Sea, where Egypt remained in control of a strip of land along the coast, which became known as the Gaza Strip.

The armistice line ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) was drawn along* the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.*

On 15 July when the Israeli Army expelled the population of Wadi Fukin after the village had been transferred to the *Israeli-occupied area* under the terms of the Armistice Agreement concluded between Israel and the Jordan...

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > There ya go
> ...



Tinnie still living in the past hahahaha.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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





> This article needs additional citations for verification.



Indeed!


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Which part of it do you find to be false??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Any claim that Israel has any borders.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



HAHAHA. What an ignorant fool you are.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Why don't you go to ISrael and have a look for yourself ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Israel has say so land and borders.

When Israel occupied Palestine is well known and undisputed.

Post some documents that show Israel legally acquiring land or borders.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Deflecting again aren't we ?

Show me a map of PAlestine


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Deflecting again aren't we ?
> 
> Show me a map of PAlestine



Indeed.

Post some documents that show Israel legally acquiring land or borders.

Cue song and dance.


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Palestine doesn't exist.


Look who's trying to wipe out who!


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Deflecting again aren't we ?
> ...



Stop deflecting and show me a map of current PAlestine


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Deflecting again aren't we ?
> ...


https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Deflecting again aren't we ?
> ...



Why don't you read about the civil war in MAndatory Palestine. You will find out a lot about how Israel acquired land. 
Then look at the Decleration of Israel and how many countries recognized it. 

Cue song and dance


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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


Searched the world over and can't find Palestine. Harder to find than a Freedom Fighter in a voting booth. Try your luck.

United Nations Cartographic Section Web Site


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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









Now where are those documents showing where Israel legally acquired land or borders.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Keep trying Hoss !! It might take you a decade, but I'm sure you'll find it


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Civil war is an Israeli propaganda term.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Weird, because when I look at a current map that area, it shows me Israel...

BTW, the map you showed me is not a country, but the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. IT was a TERRITORY . 

DO you have documents showing how PAlestinians legally acquired land?


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Of course it is:

1947?1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Looks like a 16 hole golf course to me. Now look at the links I provided a few minutes ago and the official United Mus..er, United Nations Cartography Section.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Arguing with Tinnie is fun. It's so easy proving what a fool he is !

BTW Tinniw, it's 2012 now, get with the program !


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Arguing with Tinnie is fun. It's so easy proving what a fool he is !
> 
> BTW Tinniw, it's 2012 now, get with the program !


Go easy on Tinnie. MJB said someone stuck a thumb in his soft spot at birth. Musta scrambled his googler.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



The mandate was not a territory. It was to render assistance and advise to Palestine. It owned no territory and had no borders.

Since 1949 the west has made fake maps using the 1949 armistice lines. These were not borders but they use them anyway because Israel has no borders.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Fake maps hahaha !

Tinnie, you are a complete moron. ANything that you don't believe, you call fake or propaganda.

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First line :
*Palestine (Arabic: &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Filas&#7789;&#299;n, Falas&#7789;&#299;n, Filis&#7789;&#299;n; Greek: &#928;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#943;&#957;&#951;, Palaistin&#275;; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: &#1508;&#1500;&#1513;&#1514;&#1497;&#1504;&#1492; Palestina) is a conventional name, among others, for the geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands*

GEOGRAPHIC REGION, not country


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Define civil war.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You're an idiot .. Read the article


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



I have.

Define civil war.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

*A war between factions or regions of the same country*


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Civil war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> *A war between factions or regions of the same country*



Indeed, and that is not what happened in Palestine. It was a war between the Palestinians and foreigners.

More accurately, it was an attack on Palestinian civilians by a foreign military.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

Tinnie just keeps on lying and lying. There were plenty of Jewish communities before the main immogration in 1947. Type in 'mandatory palestine civil war' and tell me how many articles you find...


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

There is reality then there is what Tinnie believes.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

There were many Jewish faction in Mandatory Palestine, why do you keep on lying?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinnie just keeps on lying and lying. There were plenty of Jewish communities before the main immogration in 1947. Type in 'mandatory palestine civil war' and tell me how many articles you find...



Nice duck. The number is not the defining factor.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Tinnie just keeps on lying and lying. There were plenty of Jewish communities before the main immogration in 1947. Type in 'mandatory palestine civil war' and tell me how many articles you find...
> ...



That doesnt even make sense.

You're the one ducking. There were plenty of Jewish communities before 1947 and the Fakestinians tried to wip them out


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

G


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Then why is Israel always shown inside lines that are not borders?

Why don't they show Israel inside its real borders?


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Nice deflection. Are you acknowledging that Palestine wasn't a state?


----------



## member (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


> *"There is reality then there is what Tinnie believes."*



*"There is reality* *then* there is what _*'Toastman'*_ *believes."*

seems, it's a two-way street  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 with '_everyone_.' that's why no one wants to make friends.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



You are the one who brought up the civil war. A civil war would be Palestinian V Palestinian. That was not the case.



> ALIEN:  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be *a foreigner *-- a person who comes from a foreign country -- *who does not owe allegiance to our country.*
> 
> Definitions: Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



????


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Tinnie, the jewish communities were not foreigners . For fucks sake, it wasnt even a country. 
Try making some sense here.


----------



## toastman (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I expected a response like that. You can't own up t o your own mistakes :


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



What "mistake" are you talking about.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 28, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Did those communities have allegiance to Palestine or to the foreigners who imported them?


----------



## Hossfly (Mar 28, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Well, Tinnie, wouldn't your ancestors have stayed in their own Middle East country if the Jews didn't have jobs for them?  For the Jews who had lived there as one old time Israeli poster on a different forum said his ancestors did for hundreds of years. don't you think those Arabs who came for jobs were foreigners to them?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 29, 2013)

Hossfly said:


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



Everyone went to Palestine seeking a better life but that is not the issue.


----------



## irosie91 (Mar 29, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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




The forces that determined the demographics or  Palestine aka Judea/Israel---which 
is the  "holy"   land of the jews is VERY MUCH  an issue

    "SEEKING A BETTER LIFE"?

-----flight from oppression  ----is not the same as -----"things are looking up over 
      there----the jews are  HIRING"      Jews who fled to  palestine in the 1800s---
      did so  under very significant peril ------but in many cases it was a lot better than 
      the filth of shariah and the stink of dhimmia ----
          however you do make an interesting point-----arab/muslim who 
          left   Israel in  1948----had good reason to try to get to those  
          fantastically rich  OIL  places-----for  a   BETTER LIFE----life 
          was tough in the place that had been called  "palestine" 
          during the  1800s and first half of  1900s ---it was a veritable 
          petri dish of   Tuberculosis,  Polio,  Cholera,   Malaria,  Shisto-
          somiasis and even Leprosy


----------

