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

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,

You make a similar mistake as our friend "P F Tinmore" makes.

But, hang on a minute, how could an occupier who seized our land by brute force... ?

(COMMENT)

The occupier (in this case you mean the Israelis) DID NOT seize our land (in this case meaning Arab Palestinian land) by brute force." Israel did not seize any Arab Palestinian sovereign territory.

... be made a legitimate land-lord over us?

(COMMENT)

Israel holds three authorities:

• Article 43 Hague Regulation. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• That authority agreed to by the Arab Palestinians in the Oslo Accords (A/51/889-S/1997/357 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 28 September 1995)

• Article 2(4) UN Charter. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

• Article 51 of the UN Charter. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.​

I see no evidence that Israel wants to actually be responsible for the albatross of the Arab Palestinian. It is essentially a failed state that is parasitic on donor contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You make a similar mistake as our friend "P F Tinmore" makes.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Lie Of The Century

Well it’s happened. It’s real. Mr Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and Senior Advisor of President Trump has delivered 136 pages of lies, suppositions and conjuring tricks to seduce or compel us Palestinians to accept our fate and surrender our rights. What rights? As far as this document is concerned Palestinians have no rights whatsoever and as for a Palestinian perspective, what is that?

The Palestinians were not even invited to Manama, let alone considered. What about the Israelis? Were they there? Were they invited? On the face of it, no, but in reality they were amply represented. What is Jared Kushner if not the team captain for the Greater Israel Project? After all, he is Jewish, an ardent Zionist, an investor in the illegal settlements in Palestine and an advocate, par excellence, for Israeli survival and supremacy.

The Lie Of The Century

The link didn't work for me but I have a few points to make just from the headlines:

1) The political part of the plan hasn't been put forth yet--perhaps that will come in September. This is the economic part. The oil-rich Arab countries and American businessmen are willing to invest in the West Bank and Gaza. What's wrong with that?

2) How could the Palestinians be invited to Bahrain when they declared from the outset that they weren't prepared to come?

3) Even if the first part of the plan had a political component to it, what difference would that really make? The Palestinians have rejected every political plan in the past. Remember, the Arabic language has no word corresponding to the English word "compromise" or the Hebrew word "p'sharah."

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,

You make a similar mistake as our friend "P F Tinmore" makes.

But, hang on a minute, how could an occupier who seized our land by brute force... ?

(COMMENT)

The occupier (in this case you mean the Israelis) DID NOT seize our land (in this case meaning Arab Palestinian land) by brute force." Israel did not seize any Arab Palestinian sovereign territory.

... be made a legitimate land-lord over us?

(COMMENT)

Israel holds three authorities:

• Article 43 Hague Regulation. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• That authority agreed to by the Arab Palestinians in the Oslo Accords (A/51/889-S/1997/357 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 28 September 1995)

• Article 2(4) UN Charter. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

• Article 51 of the UN Charter. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.​

I see no evidence that Israel wants to actually be responsible for the albatross of the Arab Palestinian. It is essentially a failed state that is parasitic on donor contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI. Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.

You don't make any sense.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of me previous posts.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,

You make a similar mistake as our friend "P F Tinmore" makes.

But, hang on a minute, how could an occupier who seized our land by brute force... ?

(COMMENT)

The occupier (in this case you mean the Israelis) DID NOT seize our land (in this case meaning Arab Palestinian land) by brute force." Israel did not seize any Arab Palestinian sovereign territory.

... be made a legitimate land-lord over us?

(COMMENT)

Israel holds three authorities:

• Article 43 Hague Regulation. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

• That authority agreed to by the Arab Palestinians in the Oslo Accords (A/51/889-S/1997/357 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 28 September 1995)

• Article 2(4) UN Charter. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

• Article 51 of the UN Charter. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.​

I see no evidence that Israel wants to actually be responsible for the albatross of the Arab Palestinian. It is essentially a failed state that is parasitic on donor contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI. Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.

You don't make any sense.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of me previous posts.

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, that's all a part of the past. The equation now is making Life better for everyone in the near future. When Communism fell in 1989, Eastern Europe was able to transform itself to freedom and democracy. The Arab Spring could not achieve this result in 2011 for the Arab nations, because they are held back by Islam. Palestine would be no different.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

There was no civil war.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

There was no civil war.

Of course there was. Jews started coming back to their ancestral homeland in great numbers in the 1800's, in movements known as the First and Second Aliyahs, long before the Balfour Declaration. By the time of fighting between Jewish and Arab Palestinians prior to the British leaving, there were great amounts of both populations. It was actually a 3-way match, but while the Palestinian Jews were fighting for a state, the Arabs were just rioting and massacring Jews with no clear-cut goal in mind, as is their nature.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Call it what you will. The is no question in my mind that since both the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians had citizenship under the same lae, THEN a conflict between citizens of the under that same authority is a "Civil War.".

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

There was no civil war.

(COMMENT)

You may call it what you will. That is now over taken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

1) According to the Partition Plan, Israel took over all the territory designated for it. It can't really be called a "conquest and annexation" since there was no independent state of Palestine in May of 1948.

2) As for the right of return, many Palestinians still live in the West Bank! Not everyone lives in the same place as their grandparents. America, for instance, is a land of immigrants. Any Arabs living in Jordan or Lebanon for the moment, will be compensated generously.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

 

[Hollie]

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

You will be sure to pass that on during the next re-write of the Hamas charter? There’s a good fellow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

Reminding Tinny that the Turks were their landlords is not a mistake.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

Zionist terrorists (later turned IDF) rolled their military over the civilian population, driving out 750 thousand of that population, destroying hundreds of villages and urban centers, and claiming all of the land for Jews when Jews were only a few percent of the population before WWI.

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

Then you place the blame on the Palestinians.
You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

BTW, you are still dancing around one of my previous posts.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

Israel's kangaroo court.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Sometimes I don't explain my thoughts as clearly as they should be explained.

(COMMENT)

Before I forget, upon reflection, I should think I owe you an apology. I misspoke in that context. You are right.

For nearly 800 years, the Turks were "AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY" were the sovereigns over the disputed territories. I was looking deeper and fouled-up that point.

Sincerely,
R
​

(COMMENT)

Prior to May 1948, any conflict between the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Palestinian was of a civil war nature; not an invader over inhabitance.

In a deeper context, there is a direct connection between the meaning of a "civil war" and that of "succession." And "succession" is one (of many) faces of self-determination. One simply cannot, as so often is done, look at those events (roughly 1946-1948) with these broad brush strokes that you tend to paint them with. In any event, the War of Independence (civil war for self-determination and succession), in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are over "period" → full stop. Who won or lost are inconsequential lines of thought. The question of 1948, (in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is settled. YOU must move on from that point on and bring yourself up to date.

(COMMENT)

The continuation of the conflict "is" driven by the Arab Palestinians that have refused to accept the actual outcome and established a set of corrupt governments that are nothing more than a means for Arab Palestinian Leaders to line their pockets.

The tool they use "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public for the extortion of monetary allowances in exchange for peace. And that is the principal characteristics of the Arab Palestinian.

(COMMENT)

I have (honestly) gone back and looked for a legitimate question that I might have missed. As you know, I don't answer propagandized positions. I move along the logical path as the Great Philosophers followed:

View attachment 267039
​

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Most Respectfully,
R

So, I'm sorry... If there is a question I missed, you'll have to restate it for me...

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

Israel's kangaroo court.

I agree, they'd laugh at your silly ass.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, it really was not a question. It was something that I expected that you would refute.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

Israel's kangaroo court.

I agree, they'd laugh at your silly ass.

They "legalize" theft all of the time.

Bunch of freeloaders.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population.

Eliminated the Palestinians? They sure have plenty left over. Are you sure?

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions.

War is hell.

The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

I agree, they should start walking to Saudi Arabia.

This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine.

Annexation? Care to post the definition you're using?

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia​

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

Israel's kangaroo court.

I agree, they'd laugh at your silly ass.

They "legalize" theft all of the time.

Bunch of freeloaders.

The Palestinians never owned anything.

 

[RoccoR]

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

I generally tackle one issue at a time, unless there is an unmistakable chain of events or causes. I showed such a chain just recently:

◈ "civil war"
◈ "succession"
◈ "self-determination"​

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

(COMMENT)

In this case, "intent" leads to a "plan" which (in turn) leads to "execution and impact." And I am not prepared to "interpret and assail" what David Ben-Gurion, et al, had in mind between 1946 - 1948 in the pre-Arab Invasion Phase of the Arab-Israeli War for Israeli Independence.

This issue of "military conquest" and "annexation of Palestine" is not a question-based Arab Palestinian Rights. It is an excuse for the people that would not cooperate with Article 22 objectives and then refused to participate in national building and the creation of self-governing institutions. The actual military confrontation (15 May '48 and forward) was NOT (repeat) NOT between the Jewish Provisional Government and the Arab Higher Committee. It was between the Israeli Government and the Arab League Nations. The Arab High Committee rejected any recommendations, invitations to participate, or any nation-building activities in lieu of whining about what they demand that was never theirs. And the Arab Palestinians have been on the criminal side of the equation ever since the Arab League invaded.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

(COMMENT)

These may be 'rights,' but they do not override the inalienable of Israel. In fact, they do NOT establish an obligation to appease the Arab Palestinian in any way.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Toddsterpatriot, et al,

Well, there is a "layman's" interpretation of the law. BUT then there is actually what the law says.

Thanks, but what you posted wasn't a definition of annexation.

Of course, the acquisition of territory by force is illegal.

When you argue that claim in front of an Israeli judge, let me know their reaction.

(COMMENT)

When the pro-Terrorist and Pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians argue this question (acquisition of territory by force is illegal) they cite:

• List of International Law Violation:

​

So! What does the Law say?

◈ First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is NOT actually Law ("A/RES/25/2625 XXV") or a binding resolution. It is a set of Principles. And what it says is:

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

1. Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law; or
   
   
2. The powers of the Security Council under the Charter.

Israel is not in violations of any principle cited here. And oddly enough Israel is NOT in contravention of the provisions of the Charter.

◈ Secondly, the UN Charter says:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

The Arab League invaded and the war did not end until the Treaties were signed.

Most Respectfully,
R