Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[Billo_Really]

It will become clear if you remember that Billo's idea of 'starting a conversation' is a tirade of vile abuse.

That wasn't a very nice thing to say.

 

[Billo_Really]

He got married and killed himself. See what happens when you get married!

Well, he was the most monogamous of all the WWII leaders. Everyone else had their stable of bitches and war groupies. All Adolf had, was Eva. And maybe his aunt, in his youth.

 

[Kondor3]

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Hitler felt the same way about Poland and we all know what happened to him.

Ahhhh... but Hitler wasn't taking-back his old spiritual and ancestral homeland.

 

[Moonglow]

He got married and killed himself. See what happens when you get married!

Well, he was the most monogamous of all the WWII leaders. Everyone else had their stable of bitches and war groupies. All Adolf had, was Eva. And maybe his aunt, in his youth.

Sexual repression leads one to be a megalomaniac, since their energies are not used on marriage and children.

 

[Moonglow]

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Hitler felt the same way about Poland and we all know what happened to him.

Ahhhh... but Hitler wasn't taking-back his old spiritual and ancestral homeland.

Prussia, in the new Poland was and ancestral home of the Germans.

 

[Kondor3]

Hitler felt the same way about Poland and we all know what happened to him.

Ahhhh... but Hitler wasn't taking-back his old spiritual and ancestral homeland.

Prussia, in the new Poland was and ancestral home of the Germans.

True.

The same cannot be said for the balance of Poland, however.

 

[georgephillip]

"...Who do you imagine "owns" the Israeli state?..."

The question of ownership of the State was raised in the article YOU cited. Go back and re-read your own article.

"...Their country" does not 'bloody well' include the West Bank and Gaza..."

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to stop them.



Millions of people living in the West Bank and Gaza are denied Israeli citizenship because they chose to stand alongside the invading Arab armies of 1948, and created and supported militias which engaged in suicide-bombing and rocketry campaigns against innocent Israeli civilian populations; thereby disqualified themselves forevermore as citizens of Israel.

If they don't like it, they can always pack-up and leave.



You may take that up directly with the Israeli government.



There is no Apartheid going on there.

Merely a walling-off of barbarians and crazies so as to minimize civilian casualties.

The barbarians and crazies had been given plenty of chances to come to a sane, rational agreement with Israel, before Israel eventually lost interest and blocked the possibility.

Also, Israel is a highly democratic nation.

Insofar as its own citizens are concerned.

Far more democratic than most of the train-wreck Arab Republics and Kingdoms nearby.

"...or vanish back into their sewers..."

So, the Jews originated ('...back into...') in the sewers, did they?

Thank you for the reinforcing example of your own bigotry.

"...Tough choice? Tough shit!"

I suggest you take-up your 'Tough' talk with the Israel Defense Force.

The Israelis face no such choice.

Except, perhaps, in your frenzied imagination.

"No Israeli court is going to redefine ownership of the Israeli State."
Do you remember who asked that question?
My article questions why Israeli lawmakers and courts refused to recognize a Jewish nationality in 1948, choosing instead to distinguish between "citizens of Israel" a category that applies to Jew and non-Jew alike, and a state which is defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation" which includes all Jews on the planet.
Jewish courts have been defining ownership of non-Jewish land in Palestine since 1948 when thousands of Arabs who didn't "chose to stand alongside invading Arab armies" but rather made a decision to remain within the Green Line, often on land their families had occupied for generations. How do you justify Israeli courts classifying those loyal Arab Israelis as "present absentees" and giving their land to recent migrants from Europe while consigning the Arabs and their families to barb wire encircled camps for the next decade? If there's no apartheid going on in Israel, turn your amateurish imagination loose and explain the 30 laws that specifically privilege Jews in Israel in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, and access to land and employment.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.


(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

First tell me what "foreign state" you're referring to?
Zionists began their creeping annexation of Palestine over one hundred years ago, and apparently you've chosen to support their hostilities and condemn their victims. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza are not hostile non-combatants they are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Section III. Occupied territories[edit]
Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoils of war. You attack me, I take your land and keep it. It has happened so many times in human history that it is a surprise to see some one that does not know it.

With the exception of 1973, when did the Arabs initiate hostilities with Israel?
BTW, your "might makes right" and the "right of conquest" expired in 1949. If you honestly believe Jews are above international law, you will need to find modern arguments to justify it.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Well!

With the exception of 1973, when did the Arabs initiate hostilities with Israel?
BTW, your "might makes right" and the "right of conquest" expired in 1949. If you honestly believe Jews are above international law, you will need to find modern arguments to justify it.

(COMMENT)

Do you want to start with the real Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Black Hand, or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of today?

Do you want to start with the 1948 conflict, or the call for a new Intifada today?

If you want to talk about being above the law, do you want to start with the suicide bombings, the piracy on the high seas, the various massacres, the hijackings of aircraft, armed attacks --- where do you want to start?

If you want to talk about international law, do you want to address all the various violations against organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; OR, would you like to talk about the bomb makers like Samer Issawi, a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was arrested by the Israeli army in Ramallah, for bomb making, during the Second Intifada?

How would you like to approach the issue?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...If there's no apartheid going on in Israel...explain..."

Sure. What's going-on here is slow-paced Expulsion rather than Apartheid. They're not trying to set them apart. They're trying to make them so disgusted that they pick up and leave under their own power.

 

[toastman]

First tell me what "foreign state" you're referring to?
Zionists began their creeping annexation of Palestine over one hundred years ago, and apparently you've chosen to support their hostilities and condemn their victims. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza are not hostile non-combatants they are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Section III. Occupied territories[edit]
Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoils of war. You attack me, I take your land and keep it. It has happened so many times in human history that it is a surprise to see some one that does not know it.

With the exception of 1973, when did the Arabs initiate hostilities with Israel?
BTW, your "might makes right" and the "right of conquest" expired in 1949. If you honestly believe Jews are above international law, you will need to find modern arguments to justify it.

1967, when they massed by Israel borders while threatening to destroy her. They surrounded tiny Israel while attacking her on all corners. And Israel is the aggressor ??

and before that in 1948 when 5 countries entered the territory with the intention of destroying the newly founded state. They surrounded the territory while trying to attack on all corners. and Israel is the aggressor ?

 

[Peterf]

It will become clear if you remember that Billo's idea of 'starting a conversation' is a tirade of vile abuse.

That wasn't a very nice thing to say.

I was about to express regret - but then I re-read the words that appear at the bottom of your every post.

 

[Billo_Really]

I was about to express regret - but then I re-read the words that appear at the bottom of your every post.

Kind of similar to what carpenters always say?

"Measure twice, cut once!"​

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Well!

With the exception of 1973, when did the Arabs initiate hostilities with Israel?
BTW, your "might makes right" and the "right of conquest" expired in 1949. If you honestly believe Jews are above international law, you will need to find modern arguments to justify it.

(COMMENT)

Do you want to start with the real Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Black Hand, or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of today?

Do you want to start with the 1948 conflict, or the call for a new Intifada today?

If you want to talk about being above the law, do you want to start with the suicide bombings, the piracy on the high seas, the various massacres, the hijackings of aircraft, armed attacks --- where do you want to start?

If you want to talk about international law, do you want to address all the various violations against organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; OR, would you like to talk about the bomb makers like Samer Issawi, a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was arrested by the Israeli army in Ramallah, for bomb making, during the Second Intifada?

How would you like to approach the issue?

Most Respectfully,
R

How about First Principles, Rocco?

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

What was the ratio of Jew to Arab in 1917 Palestine?
Any Black Hands or Intifadas?
Greedy Jews have done little else except "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" since 1917 with the aid of diplomatic cover and military aid from the reigning Empire of the day. Only devout slaves would fail to oppose such terrorist activities.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Billo_Really]

Ahhhh... but Hitler wasn't taking-back his old spiritual and ancestral homeland.

It doesn't matter what excuse you use to justify your actions, acquiring land by force has been outlawed for the last 60 years. And that was because of what went down in WWII. So the entire world, in order to prevent another war like that, decided to make wars of choice, the highest crime a nation could commit.

But it seems Israel is determined to turn back the clock?

 

[Billo_Really]

Prussia, in the new Poland was and ancestral home of the Germans.

They wanted an Aryian nation, zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Will the comparisons never end? Is history repeating itself?

 

[Roudy]

Prussia, in the new Poland was and ancestral home of the Germans.

They wanted an Aryian nation, zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Will the comparisons never end? Is history repeating itself?

And Muslims wanted and got dozens of Islamic states carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire.

Doy!

 

[Kondor3]

Ahhhh... but Hitler wasn't taking-back his old spiritual and ancestral homeland.

"...acquiring land by force has been outlawed for the last 60 years..."

Then explain the UN sitting still for the acquisition by the Soviet Union of all of the terroritories that eventually comprised the Warsaw Pact (Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania), and then installing friendly puppet governments in those lands to act as a large-scale buffer against The West.

Then explain...

* Argentina, trying to take the Falklands
* Iraq, trying to take Kuwait (UN intervention)
* Morocco taking Western Sahara from the Spanish
* North Vietnam taking South Vietnam
* North Korea trying to take South Korea (UN intervention)
* Indonesia taking East Timor from the Portugese
* China, taking Tibet
* Indonesia, taking Dutch New Guinea

...very few of which triggered any sort of UN response, and most of which were left to the contestants to fight-out, and, in cases where the foreign aggressor won-out, the land-grabs were allowed to remain intact, without effective UN intervention.

If you believe that Territorial Conquest is a thing of the past, and that the UN Charter effectively guards against this, then you are quite mistaken - but, in reality, you know better, don't you?

Look at it this way... just about everybody else on the face of the planet managed to grab enough land to support themselves before this so-called and farcical Prohibition went into effect; the Jews just came to the land-grab table after the game-clock had wound-down, and are determined to have their turn at-bat, in order to preserve their people.

If we consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a Civil War within the region known as Palestine, then, we can safely accord to that conflict the same UN-hands-off approach that we saw in Vietnam and other civil wars that have occurred since the end of WWII.

"...And that was because of what went down in WWII..."

Yes, we all understand the rationale behind it.

"...So the entire world, in order to prevent another war like that, decided to make wars of choice, the highest crime a nation could commit."

When most of the 'conquerers' listed above have surrendered their conquered territories and been sanctioned appropriately and paid compensation, then you will have a case.

A case, at least, in which consistent treatment across the board is on your side.

"...But it seems Israel is determined to turn back the clock?"

No. Just determined to carve-out a homeland for themselves after 6,000,000 of them were slaughtered. Regardless of what the rest of the world (who already have their land) thinks. Determined, as well, to be treated no differently than any other Civil War in which the UN chooses not to intervene. This is an internal struggle between two parties for control of an entire region, not a land-grab between sovereign States, despite last year's UN General Assembly Johnny-come-lately sleight-of-hand about Palestinian Statehood.

 

[Roudy]

Those arab army's went in to protect the civil rights of the indigenous arab population, that was being systematically stripped from them as more zionists migrated into the area. They were basically trying to do, what the British should have done, which was restore order.

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about. Arabs in fact were the biggest deniers of the existence of Palestine or a Palestinian people. The main reason they attacked Israel was always and only to destroy THE JEWISH STATE and carve the proceeds up between themselves.

Proof of that is when Jordan and Egypt controlled West Bank and Gaza for 20 years from 1948 to 1967 not a single Arab or Palestinian mentioned the word "Palestine".

Let us hear what other Arabs have said:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".
- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".
- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

What other Arabs declared after the Six-Day War:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".
- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

My apologies. I did not see this until now.

How about First Principles, Rocco?

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

(COMMENT)

Let's look at this.

The impression you are sending is that, some how, the

• Civil Rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine were trampled.
• Religious Rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine were trampled.

Let's talk about these rights. We are in the Muslim world, and you're talking 1917.

• What were these rights under the Ottoman Empire?

(DISCUSSION)

Civil Rights are not universal concepts. They general pertain to the range of personal liberties an individual may exercise, unique to a citizen or resident of a particular country or community. Clearly such rights are not the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times through history. Even today, the Civil Rights in the UK, Russia, China, Japan and the USA differ.

• What particular Civil Rights are you claiming were the Jewish People prejudice against relative to the non-Jewish communities?

Religious Rights are an extension of Civil Rights. They are the subset of rights that generally allow the individual to worship (or not) in any reasonable way they choose. Again these are not universally held; particularly in the Muslim world. There is more religious strife in the Muslim world than any other realm on Earth. One needs only look at the laws of Islamic States and the recent prejudice shown MP Sharon at the Temple Mount, to see the variation in acceptance. One needs only a cursory examination of the conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite to notice a difference.

• What particular Religious Rights are you claiming were the Jewish People prejudice against relative to the non-Jewish communities?

What was the ratio of Jew to Arab in 1917 Palestine?

(COMMENT)

This really confuses me, but I'll answer the question as best I can. I don't have reliable data for 1917. What I have is:

The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

SOURCE: THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR

Any Black Hands or Intifadas?

(COMMENT)

No "Black Hands or Intifadas," this level of organization was a development that took a decade to emerge. However, anti-Semitic activity on a small scale (district level) was still well known even then.

The agitation, to which reference has been made, against what was thought to be the policy to be adopted in relation to the Jews, was revived during last winter and spring. In the atmosphere that prevailed an outbreak might take place at any time. On May 1st there was a riot at Jaffa. Disturbances continued during the following days. Attacks were made from Arab villages upon the Jewish colonies of Petah Tikvah and Chederah. Troops were employed and suppressed the disturbances, and the attacks on the colonies were dispersed with considerable loss to the attackers. Martial law was proclaimed over the area affected, but much excitement prevailed for several days in Jaffa and the neighbouring districts, and for some weeks there was considerable unrest. 88 persons were killed and 238 injured, most of them slightly, in these disturbances, and there was much looting and destruction of property. There were no casualties among the troops. A number of persons were prosecuted for offences committed, and special Civil and Military Courts were established for their trial. The sentences inflicted included one of 13 years penal servitude, two of 10 years, one of 5 years, and 42 of less severity.

SOURCE: THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR

Greedy Jews have done little else except "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" since 1917 with the aid of diplomatic cover and military aid from the reigning Empire of the day. Only devout slaves would fail to oppose such terrorist activities.

(COMMENT)

Again, you repeat the accusation.

• Greedy Jews have done little else except "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

Can you substantiate the claim? OR, at least explain to me how you see how one-fifth (or less) of the territories population managed to "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" which made four-fifths.

• What Rights were taken away?
• And how?

Most Respectfully,
R