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

[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.

What does "leveled Pal'istanian lands", mean?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Israeli occupation’s fig leaf

There is an argument to be made that there should be a total boycott of the entire fabricated system of military “justice” in the occupied West Bank. This is a step some Palestinian political prisoners have actually taken.

Samidoun – the political support network for Palestinian prisoners – reports that Ghassan Zawahreh just this month declared a boycott of Israel’s military courts. Zawahreh is a prominent left-wing activist in Dheisheh refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Bethlehem. He has spent years in and out of Israeli dungeons and is currently interned by Israeli occupiers without charge or trial – their system of so-called “administrative detention”.

Zawahreh sent a letter to the court through his lawyer stating that, “administrative detention is a heinous crime for the ages. What is even more criminal is the occupation’s attempts to mislead through mock courts and charades where the executioner and the ruler, dressed up in military suits, represent the occupation and its crimes.

“I will not be a part of this charade until administrative detention is ended once and for all. I reject this court and refuse to be represented by anyone in it”.

Read more at
The Israeli occupation’s fig leaf
@Copyright The Palestinian Information Center

 

[Hollie]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

You are correct. If you wind him to up a bit, he will eventually circle back to the Treaty of Lausanne creating the State of Pally'land and then invent a litany of "International laws" (or cut and paste a YouTube video) that has no relevance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

No Arab signers?

 

[Hollie]

The Israeli occupation’s fig leaf

There is an argument to be made that there should be a total boycott of the entire fabricated system of military “justice” in the occupied West Bank. This is a step some Palestinian political prisoners have actually taken.

Samidoun – the political support network for Palestinian prisoners – reports that Ghassan Zawahreh just this month declared a boycott of Israel’s military courts. Zawahreh is a prominent left-wing activist in Dheisheh refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Bethlehem. He has spent years in and out of Israeli dungeons and is currently interned by Israeli occupiers without charge or trial – their system of so-called “administrative detention”.

Zawahreh sent a letter to the court through his lawyer stating that, “administrative detention is a heinous crime for the ages. What is even more criminal is the occupation’s attempts to mislead through mock courts and charades where the executioner and the ruler, dressed up in military suits, represent the occupation and its crimes.

“I will not be a part of this charade until administrative detention is ended once and for all. I reject this court and refuse to be represented by anyone in it”.

Read more at
The Israeli occupation’s fig leaf
@Copyright The Palestinian Information Center

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

P F Tinmore will be appearing here all week, folks. Be sure to tip your waitresses.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

No Arab signers?

Yes, they were also signed by representatives from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan.

 

[Hollie]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

Pal'istanian was a geographic area. How could a geographic area be a party to any conflict?


Still no response in connection with what sovereign land was taken?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

He's saying that because the Armistice Agreements mention the international lines of the territory of Palestine. But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

But the Agreements were signed by representatives of the Government of the State of Israel, and that is how they were ratified by the U.N.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

Plus, there was no Arab land in Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: There was no Government of Palestine after mid-night 14/15 May 1948.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

Plus, there was no Arab land in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the Liaison and Advisory role the Jewish Agency played, the British High Commissioner and Councils were devoid of any Arab Palestinian participation. Why, because the Arab Higher Committee emphatically refused to participate in the construction of self-government in Palestine. This was a completely opposite approach taken by the Jewish Agency; which participated in every aspect of government and was ready to hit the ground running when the Provisional Government was needed and formed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: There was no Government of Palestine after mid-night 14/15 May 1948.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

Plus, there was no Arab land in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the Liaison and Advisory role the Jewish Agency played, the British High Commissioner and Councils were devoid of any Arab Palestinian participation. Why, because the Arab Higher Committee emphatically refused to participate in the construction of self-government in Palestine. This was a completely opposite approach taken by the Jewish Agency; which participated in every aspect of government and was ready to hit the ground running when the Provisional Government was needed and formed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was supposed to be under UN administration. Where were they?

You can't blame the Palestinians for the UN dropping the ball.

 

[P F Tinmore]

WATCH: Israeli soldiers break into Palestinian school, arrest 10-year-old



You can't get more candy ass than that.

WATCH: Israeli soldiers break into Palestinian school, arrest 10-year-old | +972 Magazine

 

[LA RAM FAN]

WATCH: Israeli soldiers break into Palestinian school, arrest 10-year-old



You can't get more candy ass than that.

WATCH: Israeli soldiers break into Palestinian school, arrest 10-year-old | +972 Magazine

The Israel apologists can only evade and change the subject as always after this ass beating and the ass beating they got from the OP in the first post.LOL

 

[Shusha]

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

BLUF: There was no Government of Palestine after mid-night 14/15 May 1948.

No Arab signers?

Palestine was not a party to the conflict. Therefore it was not a party to the armistice.

Plus, there was no Arab land in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the Liaison and Advisory role the Jewish Agency played, the British High Commissioner and Councils were devoid of any Arab Palestinian participation. Why, because the Arab Higher Committee emphatically refused to participate in the construction of self-government in Palestine. This was a completely opposite approach taken by the Jewish Agency; which participated in every aspect of government and was ready to hit the ground running when the Provisional Government was needed and formed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was supposed to be under UN administration. Where were they?

You can't blame the Palestinians for the UN dropping the ball.

Of course you can blame the Palestinians for failing to participate in creating self governing institutions.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You are correct. Under Article 77, the trusteeship system should have taken responsibilities for the territories that were subject to the Mandate.

Palestine was supposed to be under UN administration. Where were they?

You can't blame the Palestinians for the UN dropping the ball.

(COMMENT)

Having said that, while the Recommendation did not actually require it, → it was always envisioned that both the Provisional Jewish Government and the Provisional Arab Government would accept independence. How wrong the were.

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

The UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) had foreseen this eventuality but were not equipped to handle the Arab League Invasion. By the time the Armistice Arrangements had been agreed upon, the Arab League forces (under the color of law), there was on undefined territory under the Armistice Arrangements. The Arab League had taken what they could with the long-range intent to keep it.

The Arab League were, in fact, the external nations acquiring territory by force. Jordan's approach was to seize the territory, occupy it, and then Annex it.

Egypt's approach was only slightly different. They to seized the territory and occupied it. However, the Egyptians Annex developed an alternative. They established a Military Governorship with a puppet government (which the Egyptians dissolved in 1959).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

From left, PEN International chair Jennifer Clement, prize winners Gioconda Belli and Dareen Tatour, and Oxfam Novib director Michiel Servaes.

Four months after her release from an Israeli prison, Palestinian poet and photographer Dareen Tatour received the Oxfam Novib PEN Award for Freedom of Expression in The Hague in January.

Oxfam Novib, the Dutch affiliate of the international charity Oxfam, said it awarded Tatour the prize to highlight “the growing repression of critical voices in both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.”

How Dareen Tatour found a "magic pen" in Israeli prison

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

What else is on YouTube?

 

[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?

Still nothing, huh?

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