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

[Hollie]

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.

What theft is legalized? I assume you saw this on a YouTube video and just presume it’s true.

This is another unfounded and unsupported claim.

 

[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.​

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.

1) Artificial cut-off date. 2) Israel took whatever was allowed to it under the Partition Plan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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:
View attachment 267077
​

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

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:

 

[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.

1) Artificial cut-off date. 2) Israel took whatever was allowed to it under the Partition Plan.

2) Israel took whatever was allowed to it under the Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council as required. Consequently, there was no territory allowed to Israel.

 

[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.

1) Artificial cut-off date. 2) Israel took whatever was allowed to it under the Partition Plan.

2) Israel took whatever was allowed to it under the Partition Plan.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council as required. Consequently, there was no territory allowed to Israel.

Consequently, there was no territory allowed to Israel.

And yet, each time the Arabs started a war, Israeli territory increased. Kinda cool, eh?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Israel started out, under the "Right of Self-determination" within the boundaries established under the recommendation that was adopted covered in Annex A to A/RES/181 (II) of the General Assembly, 29 November 1947.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.
You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

(COMMENT)

I don't know what Talking Point Paper to which you are referring. Did I give you a reference or link sometime in the past?

The Arab League Armed Forces cross their boundary and entered Israel, as was declared at mid-night 14/15 May '48.

Arab-Israeli wars Series of military conflicts fought between various
Arab countries and Israel (1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1969–70, 1973, and
1982). The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent
state following the United Nations’ partition of PALESTINE. Protesting
this move, five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and
Syria—attacked Israel.

As far as making "military conquest" an issue, that is a matter of defensible borders. Most of the territorial disputes were resolved.

In 1974 the PLO was formally recognized by the UN, and Arafat became the first leader
of a nongovernmental organization to address the UN. In 1988 he acknowledged Israel’s right
to exist, and in 1993 he formally recognized Israel during direct talks regarding land controlled by Israel since the SIX-DAY WAR.

The Arab Palestinians, continued a campaign of "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. This campaign had the goal: to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of their government.

The State of Israel:

​

Israel offıcially State of Israel Country, Middle East, at the eastern
end of the Mediterranean Sea. Area: 8,367 sq mi (21,671 sq km). Population
(2005 est.): 6,681,000 (includes population of GOLAN HEIGHTS and
east Jerusalem; excludes population of theWEST BANK). Capital: JERUSALEM.
Jews constitute some four-fifths of the population and Arabs about onefifth.
Languages: Hebrew, Arabic (both official).

It is what it is, the simple ground truth.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

You can deny reality all you wish; and I cannot treat your illness.

The partition plan was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council as required. Consequently, there was no territory allowed to Israel.

(COMMENT)

You can deny all you want, but in the end - your denial does not affect the reality of implementation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab League Armed Forces cross their boundary and entered Israel, as was declared at mid-night 14/15 May '48.

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli bullshit talking point. Post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where the Arab armies entered Israel.

Cue song and dance.
3
2
1

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Arab League Armed Forces cross their boundary and entered Israel, as was declared at mid-night 14/15 May '48.

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli bullshit talking point. Post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where the Arab armies entered Israel.

Cue song and dance.
3
2
1

The map of 1948 is in Post #1467 in this very thread, just a couple of ones above this one. No song-and-dance involved. And, for the last time, Palestine was the name of a territory (like Scandinavia), not an independent state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

I can't think of anyone, can you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab League Armed Forces cross their boundary and entered Israel, as was declared at mid-night 14/15 May '48.

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli bullshit talking point. Post a 1948 map of Israel then we can discuss where the Arab armies entered Israel.

Cue song and dance.
3
2
1

The map of 1948 is in Post #1467 in this very thread, just a couple of ones above this one. No song-and-dance involved. And, for the last time, Palestine was the name of a territory (like Scandinavia), not an independent state.

Uhhh, that is not a 1948 map of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

That's the question you always duck. What land was taken?
Who was it taken from?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

That's the question you always duck. What land was taken?
Who was it taken from?

Read the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements.

 

[Hollie]

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"​

(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.

(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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

That's the question you always duck. What land was taken?
Who was it taken from?

Read the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements.

As usual, you duck, sidestep and evade.

It's a simple question, not requiring a YouTube video. If sovereign land was taken, what land was taken and who was it taken from?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"​

(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.

(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

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.

The Arab countries did not invade Israel. In 1948 Israel did not have any defined territory to invade. The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

You are not connecting the dots. You keep falling back on Israel's bullshit talking points. There is only one way to change an Arab state into a Jewish state. Recorded history, documents, and facts on the ground, affirm that my statements are correct.

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.​

Without smokescreening the issues with a data dump, show me where I am wrong.

The Arab countries fought Israeli forces inside Palestine.

The Arab countries got their asses kicked by Israeli forces inside Palestine.
And when it was over, Israel was larger than it was before the Arab forces attacked.

Who did they take that land from?

That's the question you always duck. What land was taken?
Who was it taken from?

Read the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements.

Is that going to tell us who they took land from?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli army launches incursion into Gaza

GAZA, (PIC)

The Israeli occupation army on Monday morning launched a limited incursion into southern Gaza.

Local sources said that five military bulldozers in the early morning hours rolled a few hundred meters into Abasan town, east of the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Yunis, and leveled Palestinian lands.

In the neighboring city of Rafah, the Israeli occupation forces opened fire at Palestinian farmers working in their border lands. No injuries were reported.

Meanwhile, the Israeli navy heavily opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing off the shore of northern Gaza.

Read more at
Israeli army launches incursion into Gaza
@Copyright The Palestinian Information Center

 

[Hollie]

Israeli army launches incursion into Gaza

GAZA, (PIC)

The Israeli occupation army on Monday morning launched a limited incursion into southern Gaza.

Local sources said that five military bulldozers in the early morning hours rolled a few hundred meters into Abasan town, east of the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Yunis, and leveled Palestinian lands.

In the neighboring city of Rafah, the Israeli occupation forces opened fire at Palestinian farmers working in their border lands. No injuries were reported.

Meanwhile, the Israeli navy heavily opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing off the shore of northern Gaza.

Read more at
Israeli army launches incursion into Gaza
@Copyright The Palestinian Information Center

I didn't see any indication of what sovereign land was taken.