All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli UN Envoy Calls Out European Union for ‘Infinite Hypocrisy’ on Treatment of Jewish State

 

[Sixties Fan]

BBC News again ignores abuse of Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza

 

[Billo_Really]

Still no discussion?
Arab pogroms before Zionism are indeed a touchy subject, no anti-Israel poster dares to discuss.

I've discussed this subject many times. And between 1833 and the Zionist migration, there were no major incidence of violence between the two groups.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh now I get it. Before them damn Zionists took over the land in 1948 , the Palestinians & the Jews got along just fine. Gee whiz. You sure are smart, right?

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia

The Hebron massacre was started by Zionists going down to the Wailing Wall and declaring it "theirs".

What about the over 400 Jewish residents whose lives were saved by their Arab neighbors?

 

[Billo_Really]

Not national rights.
Those were given to Arabs in the rest 99.9% of the land in the middle east.
They just can't fathom the fact that Israel is the only nation that managed to get
independent from the Arab empire.

You declared independence over 70% of the land where you were only 10% of the population.

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't have a right to drive until You're licensed.

That's not a right, that's a privilege.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really,

OK, we are talking about a time before 1949 (the year of the Armistice) ⇔ (≈ seven decades ago); overlapping the period of the Palestinian Black Hand by a former Islamic Chaplin (Ottoman Army) trying to organize an Irregular Resistance Force to fight against Mandate Authority. Izz ad=Din a-Qassam petitioned and received a fatwa from the Islamic Mufti of Damascus, ruling that it is permissible to kill the British and Jews.

Then the idea of an Arab state in Palestine is irrelevant.
The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned as rightful sovereign.

As long as it didn't disenfranchise the inalienable rights of the existing, non-Jewish population of that area. There is no getting around the fact the indigenous Arab population in Palestine has rights. Land rights. Land rights Zionists took away with their terrorist groups like Irgun.

That is something Israeli posters will not read or discuss.

(COMMENT)

You can cry, bitch and moan all you want about what happened between the time of the Great War thru WWII and up to the Armistice of 1949. That will not change a thing - or - shed any light on helpful hints as to a possible solution on the conflict.

Arguing which side had the better terrorist organization (Black Hand vs Irgun) is pointless. It has no relevance to the problem at hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

 

[rylah]

Still no discussion?
Arab pogroms before Zionism are indeed a touchy subject, no anti-Israel poster dares to discuss.

I've discussed this subject many times. And between 1833 and the Zionist migration, there were no major incidence of violence between the two groups.

There were several pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
In fact the Arab pogroms were the initial trigger that caused Jews to organize politically worldwide, this organization is known today as Zionism.

Zionism was a reaction to Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine exactly during the time You mentioned. The Damascus affair is just one example of the pogroms that caused Jews to raise arms and seek independence from Muslim rule:

Damascus affair - Wikipedia
Influence of the incident and reactions to it[edit]
The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]

According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers Les Archives Israélites de France (1840-1935) in Paris or The Jewish Chronicle (1841 ff.) in London."[9]

 

[rylah]

Not national rights.
Those were given to Arabs in the rest 99.9% of the land in the middle east.
They just can't fathom the fact that Israel is the only nation that managed to get
independent from the Arab empire.

You declared independence over 70% of the land where you were only 10% of the population.

Your math is incorrect.

Majority of the land -78% was already given to an Arab state.
The 90% didn't become a majority by peaceful means.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, so we are constantly told.

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

(COMMENT)

I'm beginning to think that the pro-Arab Palestinians have little understanding of "Rights." I don't think they understadthe difference between "Positive Rights" - "Negative Rights," and "Obligations."

In the most general sense, "Rights" can be loosely defined as an entitlement for the Arab Palestinian.

RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
​

Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
.....................................(A negative right protects an entity from harm if they try to secure something.)
Positive Rights (obliges action, some entity is required to take an action)
.....................................(A positive right would be the right to have something provided.)

Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
Negative and Positive rights - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The issue of rights is a double-edged sword.

Israel has secured effective control of the West Bank. During the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Arab Palestians would Area "A" and the Israelis would have Area "C."

• The Arab Palestinians have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Israelis) in their political pursuits and control over Area "A."
• The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Area "C" and Sovereign Israeli Territory.
​

Similarly:

• The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.
• The Israelis DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Arab Palestinians to provide anything to the Israelis that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.​

I think that, at least for the Arab Palestinians, the "Rights" argument is a loser.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, so we are constantly told.

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

(COMMENT)

I'm beginning to think that the pro-Arab Palestinians have little understanding of "Rights." I don't think they understadthe difference between "Positive Rights" - "Negative Rights," and "Obligations."

In the most general sense, "Rights" can be loosely defined as an entitlement for the Arab Palestinian.

RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
​

Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
.....................................(A negative right protects an entity from harm if they try to secure something.)
Positive Rights (obliges action, some entity is required to take an action)
.....................................(A positive right would be the right to have something provided.)

Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
Negative and Positive rights - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The issue of rights is a double-edged sword.

Israel has secured effective control of the West Bank. During the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Arab Palestians would Area "A" and the Israelis would have Area "C."

• The Arab Palestinians have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Israelis) in their political pursuits and control over Area "A."
• The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Area "C" and Sovereign Israeli Territory.
​

Similarly:

• The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.
• The Israelis DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Arab Palestinians to provide anything to the Israelis that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.​

I think that, at least for the Arab Palestinians, the "Rights" argument is a loser.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what do the Palestinians expect to be given by Israel?

 

[rylah]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, so we are constantly told.

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

(COMMENT)

I'm beginning to think that the pro-Arab Palestinians have little understanding of "Rights." I don't think they understadthe difference between "Positive Rights" - "Negative Rights," and "Obligations."

In the most general sense, "Rights" can be loosely defined as an entitlement for the Arab Palestinian.

RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
​

Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
.....................................(A negative right protects an entity from harm if they try to secure something.)
Positive Rights (obliges action, some entity is required to take an action)
.....................................(A positive right would be the right to have something provided.)

Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
Negative and Positive rights - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The issue of rights is a double-edged sword.

Israel has secured effective control of the West Bank. During the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Arab Palestians would Area "A" and the Israelis would have Area "C."

• The Arab Palestinians have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Israelis) in their political pursuits and control over Area "A."
• The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Area "C" and Sovereign Israeli Territory.
​

Similarly:

• The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.
• The Israelis DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Arab Palestinians to provide anything to the Israelis that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.​

I think that, at least for the Arab Palestinians, the "Rights" argument is a loser.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what do the Palestinians expect to be given by Israel?

Israel.

 

[Sixties Fan]

32 PA policemen arrested in Jerusalem

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a question you should be able to answer.

So, what do the Palestinians expect to be given by Israel?

(COMMENT)

• One of the first and most obvious is that you, and many others, use the argument that the Israelis should leave certain areas under either Effective or Sovereign Israeli Control. You particularly, have claimed that the Israelis are foreign invaders.

• Another common claim is that the Arab Palestinians have the "Right-of-Return" (RoR). At the very moment, the boundary along the Gaza Strip has several thousand protesters trying to breach the boundary and invade territoryunder the Sovereign control of Israel.​

In both cases (supra):

The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Sovereign Israeli Territory.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that is under the control as Sovereign Israeli Territory.​

I know ... I know ... the most common of claims the Arab Palestinians put forth are the:

• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A General Assembly is NOT binding law.
- Law Library -
The General Assembly is composed of representatives from all of the 193 member states. As a deliberative body, they discuss matters, mainly relating to budgetary issues, and then make recommendations on these issues. It is widely established that General Assembly determinations ‘do not impose themselves upon the Court’2. Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but its recommendations carry political weight’3.Whilst these recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite often lead to the development of International Law. A good example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. As a resolution of the General Assembly, this declaration was not binding on any of the UN members; however the declaration was accepted over time as custom, and thus became International Law.​

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

C. Impact of the Universal Declaration (Oxford Public International Law)
13 Formally, a declaration of the UNGA is not binding on Member States, but the broad international acceptance of the UDHR over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.​

So, let's cancel those to arguments right out of the gate. What do you have besides that?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ While Muslims were attacking Jews in Israel, they were also attacking them in Los Angeles.
Yes, it is all about Israel and the want for an "Independent Palestinian State, and not about Jews and their right to their sovereign state on their own ancient homeland". Never about how all Jews must bow to Islam ]

Three IDF soldiers were injured Monday afternoon in a terrorist ramming attack south of Jerusalem.

(Full article online)

Terror attack south of Jerusalem

----------
Muslim driver arrested after he allegedly attempted to down Orthodox Jews while shouting anti-Semitic slurs near synagogue.

(full article online)

LA man arrested after attempted ramming attack on Orthodox Jews

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Which of these many points will be discussed by those who do not wish to discuss them? (full articles online) ]

Part 1

Subtle techniques of which readers are unaware, especially when they are sins of omission or choice of words, get a message across that can turn news into an op-ed.

How people are conditioned to revile Israel



Part 2

Watch out for ‘unclean’ news – infected with personal opinion driven by agenda, by a desire to condition readers or viewers.

How people are conditioned to hate Israel



Part 3

Read this and you will understand how Israel-bashers in the media purposefully and malevolently build up hatred for Israel.

How people are conditioned to revile Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a question you should be able to answer.

So, what do the Palestinians expect to be given by Israel?

(COMMENT)

• One of the first and most obvious is that you, and many others, use the argument that the Israelis should leave certain areas under either Effective or Sovereign Israeli Control. You particularly, have claimed that the Israelis are foreign invaders.

• Another common claim is that the Arab Palestinians have the "Right-of-Return" (RoR). At the very moment, the boundary along the Gaza Strip has several thousand protesters trying to breach the boundary and invade territoryunder the Sovereign control of Israel.​

In both cases (supra):

The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Sovereign Israeli Territory.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that is under the control as Sovereign Israeli Territory.​

I know ... I know ... the most common of claims the Arab Palestinians put forth are the:

• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A General Assembly is NOT binding law.
- Law Library -
The General Assembly is composed of representatives from all of the 193 member states. As a deliberative body, they discuss matters, mainly relating to budgetary issues, and then make recommendations on these issues. It is widely established that General Assembly determinations ‘do not impose themselves upon the Court’2. Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but its recommendations carry political weight’3.Whilst these recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite often lead to the development of International Law. A good example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. As a resolution of the General Assembly, this declaration was not binding on any of the UN members; however the declaration was accepted over time as custom, and thus became International Law.​

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

C. Impact of the Universal Declaration (Oxford Public International Law)
13 Formally, a declaration of the UNGA is not binding on Member States, but the broad international acceptance of the UDHR over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.​

So, let's cancel those to arguments right out of the gate. What do you have besides that?

Most Respectfully,
R

Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but its recommendations carry political weight’3.Whilst these recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite often lead to the development of International Law.

UN Resolution 194 did not make law. It did reference already established international law. Israel is not "giving" the Palestinians anything by allowing them to return to their homes.

 

[rylah]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a question you should be able to answer.

So, what do the Palestinians expect to be given by Israel?

(COMMENT)

• One of the first and most obvious is that you, and many others, use the argument that the Israelis should leave certain areas under either Effective or Sovereign Israeli Control. You particularly, have claimed that the Israelis are foreign invaders.

• Another common claim is that the Arab Palestinians have the "Right-of-Return" (RoR). At the very moment, the boundary along the Gaza Strip has several thousand protesters trying to breach the boundary and invade territoryunder the Sovereign control of Israel.​

In both cases (supra):

The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Sovereign Israeli Territory.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that is under the control as Sovereign Israeli Territory.​

I know ... I know ... the most common of claims the Arab Palestinians put forth are the:

• UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A General Assembly is NOT binding law.
- Law Library -
The General Assembly is composed of representatives from all of the 193 member states. As a deliberative body, they discuss matters, mainly relating to budgetary issues, and then make recommendations on these issues. It is widely established that General Assembly determinations ‘do not impose themselves upon the Court’2. Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but its recommendations carry political weight’3.Whilst these recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite often lead to the development of International Law. A good example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. As a resolution of the General Assembly, this declaration was not binding on any of the UN members; however the declaration was accepted over time as custom, and thus became International Law.​

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

C. Impact of the Universal Declaration (Oxford Public International Law)
13 Formally, a declaration of the UNGA is not binding on Member States, but the broad international acceptance of the UDHR over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.​

So, let's cancel those to arguments right out of the gate. What do you have besides that?

Most Respectfully,
R

Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but its recommendations carry political weight’3.Whilst these recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite often lead to the development of International Law.

UN Resolution 194 did not make law. It did reference already established international law. Israel is not "giving" the Palestinians anything by allowing them to return to their homes.

Q.What international law obliges states to accept hostile populations?

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to the Department for Research and Information on Anti-Semitism, a Berlin-based NGO, the number of anti-Semitic incidents rose by 55 percent in 2017. German police statistics indicate at least 1,421 anti-Semitic crimes were committed that year, including at least 32 violent crimes, according to NBC News. In 2016, 1,434 anti-Semitic crimes were committed. One year earlier, the figure was 1,330.

“The fact that no kindergarten, no school, no synagogue can be left without police protection dismays us,” Merkel told Channel 10 news.

(full article and video online)

Israeli Public TV Journalist Attacked in Berlin

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Muslims in Cyprus succeed at what the Muslims in Gaza and the PA can only dream of......the total destruction of a culture on the land they invaded ]

According to a 2012 report, "The Loss of a Civilization: Destruction of cultural heritage in occupied Cyprus":

"Turkey has been committing two major international crimes against Cyprus. It has invaded and divided a small, weak but modern and independent European state (since May 1, 2004 the Republic of Cyprus has been a member of the EU); Turkey has also changed the demographic character of the island and has devoted itself to the systematic destruction and obliteration of the cultural heritage of the areas under its military control...

"This is one of the most tragic aspects of the Cyprus problem and is also clear proof of the determination of Ankara to 'Turkify' the occupied area and to maintain a permanent presence in Cyprus.

"The occupying power and its puppet regime, from 1974 until today, have been working methodically to erase everything that is Greek and/or Christian from occupied Cyprus..."

A 2015 United States Library of Congress report confirmed the report:

"Foreign archaeological teams that were engaged in excavations in Cyprus were forced to discontinue their work after the 1974 events. Their valuable findings have been looted and the teams have not been able to return and resume their excavations.

"According to some estimates, through illegal excavations in the northern part of Cyprus, more than 60,000 Cypriot artifacts have been stolen and exported abroad to be sold in auction houses or by art dealers. The example of an ancient site dating from Neolithic times at the Cape of St. Andreas illustrates this point. The site, which had already been excavated under the aegis of the Department of Archaeology prior to 1974, was later damaged by the Turkish armed forces during the installation and hoisting of the flags of Turkey and the 'TRNC [Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus].'"


(full article online)

Turkey Wipes Out the Christian Culture of Occupied Cyprus