Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.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]
My math is beyond reproach. So are my conclusions.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.
You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.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]
Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.
You can't walk up to someone's house and tell them their house is now yours because God said so.RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,
Yes, so we are constantly told.
(COMMENT)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.
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.
Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
.....................................(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."
Similarly:
• 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.
• 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
Muslims did it all the time with their pogroms.You can't walk up to someone's house and tell them their house is now yours because God said so.RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,
Yes, so we are constantly told.
(COMMENT)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.
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.
Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
.....................................(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."
Similarly:
• 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.
• 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
(COMMENT)You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.
Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.
It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.Muslims did it all the time with their pogroms.
And Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims did it all the time against Palestinian Jews from 1920 to 1948.
Look how empty of Jews Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem became during those 28 years.
Nothing new. It had been happening in Europe with the Christians clearing neighborhoods, and the Muslims did exactly the same from time to time following their gods, Jesus and Allah. Their gods, "said so".
But, let us hear you say that Only the Jews, oops, the Zionists went to Muslims houses and "took them" because their G-D "said so".
How long are you going to go on defending selfish assholes who think their shit don't stink?RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,
That is a great theme. You should make a T-Shirt or take it to the Comedy Club.
(COMMENT)You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.
Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.
"Correlation does not imply Causation"
Most Respectfully,
R
(QUESTIONs)It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.
"...Israel effectively occupied the territory, when Jordan expressly relinquished sovereignty."RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Billo_Really, et al,
When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"
(QUESTIONs)It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.
The Arab Palestinians claim the RoR in four cases.
◈ That period (in general) covering 1946-to-1949.What particular binding agreement (an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law) or "Law" covers those four periods pertaining to RoR?
✦ The period before Israeli sovereignty...◈ Thet period (in general) covering 1967-to-1988 (under Jordainan Sovereignty).
✦ The Period after Israeli Sovereinty and during the Armistice of 1949...
⟴ The period after the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)
⟴ The period after the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)
◈ That period (in general) covering 1988-to-Oslo Accord (during the period under which Israel maintained effective control).
◈ That period (in general) covering the preiod1995 (during which Israel maintained full control over Area "C" by Palestinian Agreement).
◈ In November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence. However, Jordan had, by that time, abandon the sovereignty held over the territory. What, if any, does the Jordainian abandonment of the territory, leaving it in the hands of the Israeelis have on the matter and law.? The territory in question was nolonger under the sovereignty of Jordan state (terra nullius); Israel effectively occupied the territory, when Jordan expressly relinquished sovereignty.
When you talk about RoR, I am only more confused that you don't explain to me, the period and the binding laws in effect.
Help me out here...
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)An "occupied territory" is only temporary and can't be transformed.
Israel is a member state that refuses to follow international law.RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,
It doesn't quite answer the question.
(COMMENT)An "occupied territory" is only temporary and can't be transformed.
Who says that. Every single thing on the planet is temporary. The question is, for how long it remains in one state before it changes into another.
As asked in Posting #6135 (supra):
◈→ When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Israel is a member state that refuses to follow international law.
According to Israel's logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.
According to Israel's logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.