Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but that does not answer my question.

You ask stupid questions and you're wrong about everything. ISrael has internationally recognized borders with Jordan and Egypt weather you like it or not.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does answer your question.

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but that does not answer my question.

(COMMENT)

Under A/RES/25/2625 procedures (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) an arbitrator, a mediator, a facilitator, a judge or court, can be involved in the process; jointly agreed upon by the JIPLC. But that does not make them a party to the grievance in the dispute process. There are only two parties to the dispute: The Israelis 'vs' Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It does answer your question.

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but that does not answer my question.

(COMMENT)

Under A/RES/25/2625 procedures (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement) an arbitrator, a mediator, a facilitator, a judge or court, can be involved in the process; jointly agreed upon by the JIPLC. But that does not make them a party to the grievance in the dispute process. There are only two parties to the dispute: The Israelis 'vs' Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't asking about procedures. I was asking about authority.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't really care what you think, so....

Well, you're missin' out, because the things I think, are pretty kick-ass!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Dispute Resolution Process can be initiated under the authority of the:

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

I wasn't asking about procedures. I was asking about authority.

(COMMENT)

The key is that both parties to the Agreement (The DOP between Israel and the PLO) must agree, just as they must agree to any alternative process. Each party to the dispute must want to engage in a comprehensive peace accord process and agree to it being binding; whatever the outcome.

What type of "authority are you looking for?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

There aren't any. It's just another tool to delegitimize the rights of a people that has nothing to do with the here and now.

All the census results and the demographics point to there having been arab muslim migration to Palestine from the 1890's up until 1948. No 3rd world culture could exceed a population increase at the level the arab muslims managed. Their best result would have been 37 live births to adulthood from every 1,000 pregnancies. Their population explosion was in the region of 1500 live births per 1000 pregnancies

Like I said. It's just another tool to degelitimize people. The best census figures estimate SOME illegal immigration but are unable to say how much.

Tell me - do you then consider most of the Israeli Jews to be foreign invaders then?

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

In all seriousness...after an 8 hour road trip to vist my mom in NC....and much converstation and wine...I'm not sober enough to answer this thoughtfully....I'll have to come back

 

[Billo_Really]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Dispute Resolution Process can be initiated under the authority of the:

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

I wasn't asking about procedures. I was asking about authority.

(COMMENT)

The key is that both parties to the Agreement (The DOP between Israel and the PLO) must agree, just as they must agree to any alternative process. Each party to the dispute must want to engage in a comprehensive peace accord process and agree to it being binding; whatever the outcome.

What type of "authority are you looking for?

Most Respectfully,
R

The kind of authority that drove the Nazis out of Poland?

 

[Phoenall]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

And there was me thinking that the Israelites invaded the 'holy land'!

They might of 4,500 years ago but the last invaders were arab muslims starting in the 1890's and going up till 1948

Ah I see... And thats ok is it Phoney?

Seems to be a lot of bleating from the Zionist Camp about history or not history...

An invasion of Israelites is acceptable because...?

I have little interest in the history of the ME as far as this forum is concerned. Know why? Selective History is NOT history!

The Zionist Camp picks and chooses its OWN historical 'fact' at random...

Choosing to be pedantic about the terminology...

Sometimes there is/was such a thing as Palestine, sometimes not... Depending on what suits your argument at that time!

To paraphrase an earlier post...

The Muslims are there to stay, get over it!

Try because it was acceptable CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW at the time. That is the only fact that need concern you. Not that the Law today should be implemented retrospectively to the Jews of 1948 because the laws of 1948 act in their favour. It is team Palestine that picks and chooses what era of history they want modern day International Law to apply to so they can discredit and demonise the Jews. The Jews are there for good under CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, something the arab muslims don't have on their side. Just as Israel will be forever known as THE JEWISH STATE because it was enshrined in CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW at the time. The muslims may be there to stay, but it does not stop the Israelis from defending their rights to the land against muslim violence and terrorism and killing 2,000 terrorists/militia everytime they attack Israel or the Israeli people. SO YOU GET OVER THAT

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Dispute Resolution Process can be initiated under the authority of the:

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

I wasn't asking about procedures. I was asking about authority.

(COMMENT)

The key is that both parties to the Agreement (The DOP between Israel and the PLO) must agree, just as they must agree to any alternative process. Each party to the dispute must want to engage in a comprehensive peace accord process and agree to it being binding; whatever the outcome.

What type of "authority are you looking for?

Most Respectfully,
R

The kind of authority that drove the Nazis out of Poland?

So you want a totalitarian fascist neo communist authority to wipe out the Jews and take their land away from them. Now tell the board again that you are not a Jew hater

 

[Billo_Really]

So you want a totalitarian fascist neo communist authority to wipe out the Jews and take their land away from them. Now tell the board again that you are not a Jew hater

That's not what I said.

Why do you want people to hate Jews?

 

[Phoenall]

So you want a totalitarian fascist neo communist authority to wipe out the Jews and take their land away from them. Now tell the board again that you are not a Jew hater

That's not what I said.

Why do you want people to hate Jews?

That is the authority that chased the Germans out of Poland and took power. And they killed more Jews than the Germans did.

I don't I am just pointing the obvious to the good people on this board that you are a JEW HATER

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

When they were used as borders in treaties signed by Israel and Egypt and Jordan.

Yes Phoney. You really need to read the treaty with Jordan, especially article 2/G. King Hussein's signing of that treaty was conditional upon the successful conclusion of the Oslo process . As for Egypt..."Mohammed Seif al-Dawla, an adviser to current Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, has announced that amending the treaty is ‘a matter of time’ and that he would submit a proposal for introducing changes to the treaty."

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Kondor3]

...The kind of authority that drove the Nazis out of Poland?

You can always draw 'em a battleship... that should do the trick.

 

[Billo_Really]

You can always draw 'em a battleship... that should do the trick.

What, do you live in the 18th century? Live in the now! It's been awhile since we put down our Ticonderoga No.2's and embraced the photo-shopped generation.

Why draw, when technology can do that for you? And besides, my battleship is already drawn, no need to draw it again.

 

[Billo_Really]

That is the authority that chased the Germans out of Poland and took power. And they killed more Jews than the Germans did.

You're saying the Allied Forces, were just a bunch of JEW HATERS?

I don't I am just pointing the obvious to the good people on this board that you are a JEW HATER

So it should be easy for you to tell the "good people on this board", why would I HATE JEWS?

Go ahead, the good people of this board are awaiting your answer...

...why would I hate Jews?

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Just as a reminder, Egyptian President Morsi, who supported the Muslim Brotherhood, did not last out his term as President. Field Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi removed him in June 2013.

Yes Phoney. You really need to read the treaty with Jordan, especially article 2/G. King Hussein's signing of that treaty was conditional upon the successful conclusion of the Oslo process . As for Egypt..."Mohammed Seif al-Dawla, an adviser to current Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, has announced that amending the treaty is ‘a matter of time’ and that he would submit a proposal for introducing changes to the treaty."

Nothing lasts forever.

(COMMENT)

Mohamed Morsi is out selling Egyptian state secrets to Qatari Intelligence. The Muslim Brotherhood is now a designated Terrorist organization in Egypt, and Mr. Bani Rushaid (Deputy Head of the Muslim Brotherhood), under arrest in Jordan, accused the Emirates of sponsoring terrorism and questioned the legitimacy of its rulers. Recently, the Emirates formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, along with Russian, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

As you say, nothing lasts forever.

As for the Jordanian-Israeli Peace: “Israel and Jordan are committed to peace and to respect the peace treaty, but this commitment is not just applicable to one side, it is a commitment by both,” --- Abdullah Ensour, Prime Minister, Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

When they were used as borders in treaties signed by Israel and Egypt and Jordan.

Yes Phoney. You really need to read the treaty with Jordan, especially article 2/G. King Hussein's signing of that treaty was conditional upon the successful conclusion of the Oslo process . As for Egypt..."Mohammed Seif al-Dawla, an adviser to current Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, has announced that amending the treaty is ‘a matter of time’ and that he would submit a proposal for introducing changes to the treaty."

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Phoenall]

Only problem is they cant alter the treaties unilaterally, or they fail to apply. This would then mean the AID from the USA would cease and they would no longer be protected by the USA. Egypt tried this when the M.B. were in power and the USAS told them NO MORE MONEY FROM NOW and did not transfer any money into their bank accounts. We all know what happened next

 

[Phoenall]

That is the authority that chased the Germans out of Poland and took power. And they killed more Jews than the Germans did.

You're saying the Allied Forces, were just a bunch of JEW HATERS?

I don't I am just pointing the obvious to the good people on this board that you are a JEW HATER

So it should be easy for you to tell the "good people on this board", why would I HATE JEWS?

Go ahead, the good people of this board are awaiting your answer...

...why would I hate Jews?

Yes they were which is why they did nothing to protect the Jews in Europe at the time. How many Jews were the allies instrumental in killing before, during and after the war ?


That is a question only you can answer, but I can point out that your posts just drip with venomous Jew hatred and Nazi Anti-Semitism.