Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[Jroc]

"...Don't talk to me about cry baby's! You fuckers whine like banshees whenever anyone directs criticism you way, no matter how valid it is..."

What the hell is wrong with you?

Rocco is quite probably in the upper 10% of all posters on USMB, when it comes to respectful interaction with his colleagues.

You seem to be rapidly headed towards the bottom 10% in that context.

Lighten-the-fuck-up, 'K?

He's a bottom dweller

 

[Billo_Really]

What the hell is wrong with you?

I take issue with the fact he inferred I was a "cry baby" and "drama queen" and you want to know what's wrong with "me"?

I don't know what planet you're on, but in my world, saying that to someone, is pretty disrespectful.

Rocco is quite probably in the upper 10% of all posters on USMB, when it comes to respectful interaction with his colleagues.

I agree.

You seem to be rapidly headed towards the bottom 10% in that context.

And why is that?

Lighten-the-fuck-up, 'K?

After everything you just laid down, you end it with that!

I guess I'll have to, 'cause that's funny!

 

[Billo_Really]

Loinboy really thinks he is fooling the readers that he really, really cares about the Arabs and those evil Zionists...

How many times have I told you I don't give a shit about either side?

How many more times do I need to tell you, before you stop lying about it?

 

[Kondor3]

What the hell is wrong with you?

I take issue with the fact he inferred I was a "cry baby" and "drama queen" and you want to know what's wrong with "me"? I don't know what planet you're on, but in my world, saying that to someone, is pretty disrespectful..."

It's not Rocco's fault that you come-across like that sometimes.

You seem to be rapidly headed towards the bottom 10% in that context.

And why is that?

You don't score high on the Respectfulness Scale when you're constantly calling your adversary-colleagues 'you fuckers'.

The mere need to explain such an obvious connection raises an eyebrow.

Lighten-the-fuck-up, 'K?

After everything you just laid down, you end it with that! I guess I'll have to, 'cause that's funny!

What else was there to say?

The outburst against Rocco - coupled with your routine aggressive-foul language directed towards several other colleagues - smacks of dogma and drips contempt for your peers.

It is the fate of Guardhouse Lawyers than they must always try to get-in the last word and that they can only rarely discern their own culpability.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's not Rocco's fault that you come-across like that sometimes.

It's absolutely his fault. It's 100% his fault. I am not responsible, for the reactions people "choose" to have, in response to my posts. His perception of who I am, or what I say, is whatever he chooses that to be.

And quite frankly, it's not my fault he calls me names.

You don't score high on the Respectfulness Scale when you're constantly calling your adversary-colleagues 'you fuckers'.

The mere need to explain such an obvious connection raises an eyebrow.

What's wrong with that? It's not anti-semitic.

What else was there to say?

Maybe a "thank you billo for raising our conciousness, being the wind under out wings and a force of good in the world..."

Should I go on?

The outburst against Rocco - coupled with your routine aggressive-foul language directed towards several other colleagues - smacks of dogma and drips contempt for your peers.

That's nothing compared to how you fu....I mean.....enlightened ones treat anyone who criticizes Israel.

Just look how much contempt you have for me, because I objected to being called names?

It is the fate of Guardhouse Lawyers than they must always try to get-in the last word and that they can only rarely discern their own culpability.

Thank God, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Peterf]

You know that Israel is not exterminating Palestinians - who's numbers are growing as others have pointed out. So why do you keep telling this absurd lie Billo? Is it that you are a follower of Dr. Goebbles, who was of the the opinion that if one tells a big enough lie, and repeats it often enough, some people will believe it?

I know it's not called "extermination". I believe the zionists word for it is "transfer".

“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

Theodor Herzl (1895) - PLAN DALET

The reason it's not called "extermination" is because it is not extermination.

Jews DO NOT intend to exterminate Arabs. Arabs DO intend to exterminate Jews. No sensible discussion can take place unless these two central facts are kept in mind.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Ooops, let's roll back here a minute.

I take issue with the fact he inferred I was a "cry baby" and "drama queen" and you want to know what's wrong with "me"?

I don't know what planet you're on, but in my world, saying that to someone, is pretty disrespectful.

(COMMENT)

First, let's go back to the Post 759 and examine the intent.

I said: Don't be such a Drama Queen. They launched rockets indiscriminately and the(y) received the traditional counter-strike. (From Post #759)

The discussion was about how you were comparing the events of Operation Cast Lead in the northern Gaza Strip to scenes in WWII. My intent, with the term "Drama Queen" was to suggest that you were being a little over "melodramatic" in your comparison ("like in those World War II films") which was bolded. In retrospect, maybe I should have used the phrase: a little over "melodramatic"... But given the context of the discussion, I hardly think the exchange was "pretty disrespectful." But in future, I'll take your sensitivity into account.​

Second, let's go back to Post #769.

I said: This is what we call the "cry baby defense." (From Post #769).

Notice it was in quotation marks. It doesn't apply to you specifically, but describes they type of defense tactic being used. There are several different types of "cry baby defenses." In this context it describes the case where two kids fight over the same toy.

The mother gives Child "A" a toy to play with. Child "B" says the mother had no right to give Childs "A" the toy, and starts a fight with Child "B". Child "B" thrashes Child "A" pretty severely and takes a second toy. Child "B" then runs to the mother and complains.

In this case, the UN gave the right of self-determination over apportioned territory to the Jewish People. The Arab People came by and said, the UN had no right to do that. The Arab People start a fight with the Jewish People. The Arab People are severely thrashed, and in the process loss more control. The Arab People run back to the UN and say that the Jewish People are in violation of the law that we don't recognize in the UN.
​

Rather than run through that whole story, we call it the "cry baby defense." It was a description of the tactic, and not directed at you, specifically or personally.
​

In most all responses, I focus on the content and NOT the contributor. I rarely resort to name calling, although I have slipped now and then.

As I wipe my "crocodile tears" from my face, I hope I've made my position clear and clarified both these instances.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

The reason it's not called "extermination" is because it is not extermination.

Israel, is trying to "ethnically cleanse" the entire area of Palestinian's.

That's pretty exterminating!

Jews DO NOT intend to exterminate Arabs. Arabs DO intend to exterminate Jews. No sensible discussion can take place unless these two central facts are kept in mind.

This is not a religious issue. It's not about jews and arabs. It's a political issue between Israeli's and Palestinian's. You just want to keep it about jews and arabs, because you can't deal with the Israeli governments gross violations of human rights and international law.

Israel’s Deplorable Human Rights Record

Israel denies Arab citizens fundamental rights. Activist Jews face harsh treatment. Israeli viciousness reflects official policy.

Occupied Palestinians fare worst. Militarized occupation harshness brutalizes them ruthlessly. Netanyahu exceeds Sharonian evil.

Palestine is an isolated prison. Besieged Gaza is the world’s largest open-air one. An entire population is being suffocated out of existence.

Since 1948, Palestinians endured virtually every form of indignity, degradation and crime against humanity. They face daily abuses too great to ignore.

If arabs really wanted to wipe out jews, why is it, Israel's the one always breaking the ceasefires?

 

[TheBarber]

Israel, is trying to "ethnically cleanse" the entire area of Palestinian's.

They're just cleaning up the evil doers and making the neighbourhood worth living in.

 

[Billo_Really]

First, let's go back to the Post 759 and examine the intent.

I said: Don't be such a Drama Queen. They launched rockets indiscriminately and the(y) received the traditional counter-strike. (From Post #759)

The discussion was about how you were comparing the events of Operation Cast Lead in the northern Gaza Strip to scenes in WWII. My intent, with the term "Drama Queen" was to suggest that you were being a little over "melodramatic" in your comparison ("like in those World War II films") which was bolded. In retrospect, maybe I should have used the phrase: a little over "melodramatic"... But given the context of the discussion, I hardly think the exchange was "pretty disrespectful." But in future, I'll take your sensitivity into account.​

First off, I was just using those terms to make a point with Kondor3, who seemed to be a little overly selective in his evaluation, not because I found the terms particularly offensive.

What I did find offensive, was the cavalier way at which you dismissed the comparison with the carnege of WWII. I should also note, that was not "my" comparison, those were the words of a member of the IDF who took part in Cast Lead and was describing what he saw and what they did. You can't get anymore credible than an eye-witness account from the ones pulling the trigger.

You (who wasn't there), called him (an IDF member who was there), a "drama queen", because he described the carnege as being similar to the destruction of WWII. I wasn't there as well, but if that's what he said he saw, I think it would require more respect on our part, than what you showed. That's just my take on that.

Second, let's go back to Post #769.

I said: This is what we call the "cry baby defense." (From Post #769).

Notice it was in quotation marks. It doesn't apply to you specifically, but describes they type of defense tactic being used. There are several different types of "cry baby defenses." In this context it describes the case where two kids fight over the same toy.

The mother gives Child "A" a toy to play with. Child "B" says the mother had no right to give Childs "A" the toy, and starts a fight with Child "B". Child "B" thrashes Child "A" pretty severely and takes a second toy. Child "B" then runs to the mother and complains.

In this case, the UN gave the right of self-determination over apportioned territory to the Jewish People. The Arab People came by and said, the UN had no right to do that. The Arab People start a fight with the Jewish People. The Arab People are severely thrashed, and in the process loss more control. The Arab People run back to the UN and say that the Jewish People are in violation of the law that we don't recognize in the UN.
​

Rather than run through that whole story, we call it the "cry baby defense." It was a description of the tactic, and not directed at you, specifically or personally.
​

In most all responses, I focus on the content and NOT the contributor. I rarely resort to name calling, although I have slipped now and then.

As I wipe my "crocodile tears" from my face, I hope I've made my position clear and clarified both these instances.

Now this I find particularly disgusting, condescending and the analogy wrong. To equate the issue of the Palestinian's being stripped of their right to self-determination, with a couple of children fighting over a toy, is extremely insensitive.

As far as the accuracy of your analogy, you claimed...

...the UN gave the right of self-determination over apportioned territory to the Jewish People. The Arab People came by and said, the UN had no right to do that.

Now let's go back to post #773, where I made it clear, that was not the case, by posting the comment from Lord Balfour regarding the caveat of "the Mandate", that the jews only had that "right" to create a jewish state, if they did it without disenfranchising the indigenous, non-jew population in that area.

Since you refuse to address that, I'll post his comment again...

“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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

- Arthur James Balfour [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]

"...existing non-jewish communities..."


"...existing non-jewish communities..."


"...existing non-jewish communities..."

Those were Lord Balfour's words and I want it to sink in, because that is prima facia evidence that the "arabs" didn't just "come by". They were there. And have been for generations. They have the right to self-determination, which has been codified in several UN resolutions.

This issue is much, much larger, than two siblings fighting.

And finally, on a personal note, I like you. I also respect the way you debate, even if I do disagree with it's content. We definately need more people like you on this board.

Have a nice day!

 

[Billo_Really]

They're just cleaning up the evil doers and making the neighbourhood worth living in.

Oh. In that case, my bad.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[docmauser1]

The reason it's not called "extermination" is because it is not extermination.

Israel, is trying to "ethnically cleanse" the entire area of Palestinian's. That's pretty exterminating!

Who's "palestinian's"?

Since 1948, Palestinians endured virtually every form of indignity, degradation and crime against humanity. They face daily abuses too great to ignore. If arabs really wanted to wipe out jews, why is it, Israel's the one always breaking the ceasefires?

Who made that up?

 

[docmauser1]

Those were Lord Balfour's words and I want it to sink in, because that is prima facia evidence that the "arabs" didn't just "come by". They were there. And have been for generations.

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." Winnie Churchill in 1939.
Some generations, indeed.

They have the right to self-determination, which has been codified in several UN resolutions.

All they want is to walk into some jewish home and take it over, of course.

 

[Kondor3]

The reason it's not called "extermination" is because it is not extermination.

Israel, is trying to "ethnically cleanse" the entire area of Palestinian's.

That's pretty exterminating!

Not really.

If they massacre all the Muslim-Arab Palestinians and shovel them into the ground, that's Extermination.

If they push them off the land and send them packing to Jordan, Lebanon, et al, that's Expulsion.

Call it pay-back for the Muslims forcing-out the Jews in many of their countries in the period 1948-1975.

"...This is not a religious issue. It's not about jews and arabs. It's a political issue between Israeli's and Palestinian's..."

I believe the entire macro-level struggle is BOTH political AND religious in nature; beginning (in the mid-to-late 19th, and re-initializing again in 1947-1949), as a purely secular, political and land-ownership dispute, and quickly degenerating into an clouded-over hybrid which includes a strong religious component; deeply ingrained and long established.

"...You just want to keep it about jews and arabs, because you can't deal with the Israeli governments gross violations of human rights and international law..."

People use 'Jews' and 'Israelis' interchangeably in an Israeli-Palestinian Conflict context, just as they use 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' or 'Muslims and Palestinians' interchangeably in that same context; a slip in accuracy but commonplace enough and not likely to be based on insidious attempts at masking and deflection.

"...Israel denies Arab citizens fundamental rights..."

Most, if not all, inconsistencies in the treatment of Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel have been resolved at-law in recent years, based on my modest second-hand understanding of events as they have unfolded there.

Arab-Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza, on the other hand, are NOT citizens of Israel; in large part, this was a choice that they made by choosing the wrong side; repeatedly. They are an Enemy Population who are geographically constrained and kept separate from Israelis in order to enhance the safety of Jewish Israeli citizens. Civilizations great and small have been keeping Barbarians outside the gates and on the other side of The Wall for thousands of years; a time-honored and largely successful survival tactic.

"...Activist Jews face harsh treatment..."

No doubt. Fifth-columnists, traitors and those who would offer their backsides to The Enemy are usually held in great contempt and treated as potentially dangerous weakeners of a strong collective will to see a thing through. No surprise there. Probably deserved in some cases, and undeserved in others.

"...Israeli viciousness reflects official policy..."

In order to make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs. This is grown-up stuff, not the kiddie matinee, with the existence of Israel at-stake. No room for surrender-monkeys, half-measures, or silly, simpering kumbaya-my-lord sentiments in the realm of operative thought.

"...Occupied Palestinians fare worst..."

They chose poorly. Repeatedly. Poor choices have consequences. If they don't like them, they had best pack-up and leave, and go live someplace else that (a) wants them and (b) offers a prospect for a peaceful, happy life amongst their own kind.

"...Militarized occupation harshness brutalizes them ruthlessly..."

In truth, they're not 'occupied' so much as 'walled-off' and 'walled-out' where they can do less harm and damage to Jewish Israel.

"...Netanyahu exceeds Sharonian evil..."

If, by that, you mean that Netanyahu has been obliged to make even more unpleasant and unpalatable choices in order to protect Jewish Israelis, than Sharron was obliged to do, then, there may be a ring of truth to the observation, although we disagree on the sort of verbiage that should be applied to such choices and their outcomes.

"...Palestine is an isolated prison. Besieged Gaza is the world’s largest open-air one..."

Perhaps, then, they should have made different choices while they still could.

Looks like Intifada I and II ended-up backfiring on the Palestinians after all, eh?

They'd be a far happier lot today if they had not conducted long-term suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns.

Too late, now.

"...An entire population is being suffocated out of existence..."

Not really. But they ARE, apparently, being squeezed out of Palestine, slowly bur surely.

Theirs is a truly Lost Cause and there's no point hanging-about. The Israeli-Jews have won the Battle for Palestine. The Arab-Muslims have lost. It's as simple as that.

Any Muslim-Arab Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza with an ounce of brains and two shekels to rub together needs to get himself and his family the hell outta there.

Like the Jews kicked out of Muslim countries, the Muslims of the West Bank and Gaza are no longer welcome.

Best to go where you're wanted, or at least similar in ethnicity and religion and politics and culture to your neighbors.

"...Since 1948, Palestinians endured virtually every form of indignity, degradation and crime against humanity. They face daily abuses too great to ignore..."

So it oftentimes seems, to those on the Losing Side of a turf-battle; especially when the Losing Side continues to conduct pointles guerrilla warfare operations long after the matter has been decided and long after any Sane People would have acknowledged such a Reality.

"...If arabs really wanted to wipe out jews, why is it, Israel's the one always breaking the ceasefires?"

The two [ (1) Arabs wanting to wipe-out the Jews, and (2) Israel's own contributions to breaking-the-peace ] are largely disconnected in this narrow context.

The Muslim-Arabs of the region, including the Palestinians, do, indeed, want to wipe-out the Jews, or, at a minimum, the Jewish-controlled State of Israel... it's just that they don't have the muscle to carry-out their desires.

Lord knows they've tried, repeatedly.. and failed, repeatedly.

As to Israel breaking the peace... well... there are two sides to every such story, and, although I"m sure we can find a fair number of micro-level examples of such, and even a macro-level example or two (if one counts preemptive strikes against massing war-assets to be a breaking-of-the-peace), but, generally speaking, on the macro-level, Israeli violence against Palestinians is largely reactive rather than proactive.

They have enough troubles of their own (including PR troubles, thanks to spin-doctoring and Muslim propaganda efforts and Muslim-sympathizers) to go about foolishly creating any more than is absolutely necessary. They react to Palestinian guerrilla warfare actions and provocations far more often than they initiate localized hostilities.

This does not, of course, count 'fence shootings' and the like.

If you don't want to get shot, keep your ass away from the Fence or Wall, and don't go phukking-around taunting or provoking the border guards or stupidly giving them excuses to take pot-shots at you.

Discounting the occasional individual psychotic Israeli border guard who meanly shoots at someone on the other side of The Wall without proper reason (and there are bound to be a few in every bunch)...

Generally speaking, Israel doesn't start those localized brawls, but it does usually end them... as it needs to... through the use of overwhelming reactive force.

 

[Kondor3]

"... Just look how much contempt you have for me, because I objected to being called names?..."

I do not hold you in contempt. If I did, there would be no room for ambiguity.

It is the fate of Guardhouse Lawyers than they must always try to get-in the last word and that they can only rarely discern their own culpability.

Thank God, I'm not a lawyer.

A Guardhouse Lawyer in such a metaphorical context may be loosely defined as an amateur who tries to lord it above others and insists that his view and mastery of the material is superior to that of his fellows and who is largely unwilling to accept criticism and who will endlessly counterpoint such criticisms and who must always get-in the last word about either the subject matter or such criticisms.

I am still trying to decide whether you are a Guardhouse Lawyer or whether my adversarial stance on the Israel-Palestine issue is clouding my judgment about you a wee bit too much.

Your recent conciliatory dialogue with Rocco stands in your favor; not that what I think of you matters a damn in the larger scheme of things. That last bit was well done, given the rough start to the sequence.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Humm, yes ---

As I wipe my "crocodile tears" from my face, I hope I've made my position clear and clarified both these instances.

Now this I find particularly disgusting, condescending and the analogy wrong. To equate the issue of the Palestinian's being stripped of their right to self-determination, with a couple of children fighting over a toy, is extremely insensitive.

As far as the accuracy of your analogy, you claimed...

...the UN gave the right of self-determination over apportioned territory to the Jewish People. The Arab People came by and said, the UN had no right to do that.

Now let's go back to post #773, where I made it clear, that was not the case, by posting the comment from Lord Balfour regarding the caveat of "the Mandate", that the jews only had that "right" to create a jewish state, if they did it without disenfranchising the indigenous, non-jew population in that area.

Since you refuse to address that, I'll post his comment again...

“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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

- Arthur James Balfour [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]

(COMMENT)

There are two kinds of rights mentioned here.

• civil rights
  • non political in nature
  • the rights without regard to sex, race, or religion
  • rights of personal liberty that belong to an individual
• religious rights
  • free exercise thereof
  • prohibiting discrimination

The establishment of the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the Jewish State have not interfered with these rights. They are political constructs.

The Arab Palestinian was not stripped of its right to self-determination. It chose conflict over peace. It chose to reject rather than participate.

Most Respectfully
R

 

[pbel]

Billo_Really, et al,

Humm, yes ---

As I wipe my "crocodile tears" from my face, I hope I've made my position clear and clarified both these instances.

Now this I find particularly disgusting, condescending and the analogy wrong. To equate the issue of the Palestinian's being stripped of their right to self-determination, with a couple of children fighting over a toy, is extremely insensitive.

As far as the accuracy of your analogy, you claimed...
Now let's go back to post #773, where I made it clear, that was not the case, by posting the comment from Lord Balfour regarding the caveat of "the Mandate", that the jews only had that "right" to create a jewish state, if they did it without disenfranchising the indigenous, non-jew population in that area.

Since you refuse to address that, I'll post his comment again...

“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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

- Arthur James Balfour [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]

(COMMENT)

There are two kinds of rights mentioned here.

• civil rights
  • non political in nature
  • the rights without regard to sex, race, or religion
  • rights of personal liberty that belong to an individual
• religious rights
  • free exercise thereof
  • prohibiting discrimination

The establishment of the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the Jewish State have not interfered with these rights. They are political constructs.

The Arab Palestinian was not stripped of its right to self-determination. It chose conflict over peace. It chose to reject rather than participate.

Most Respectfully
R

Rocco, again you claim that the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" is somehow legitimate although the owners and people who resided on that land had no voice in its establishment...Can you give us an example where in the history of humankind this happened with the consent of the displaced population?

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

And again, you (as well as others) are making a connection between "sovereignty" and "land ownership" and "residency."

Second, the displacement of the population is a secondary outcome, not associated with the action of "sovereignty" ---- BUT, that the sovereignty was the proximate cause. (I'll go into this below.)

Rocco, again you claim that the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" is somehow legitimate although the owners and people who resided on that land had no voice in its establishment...Can you give us an example where in the history of humankind this happened with the consent of the displaced population?

(COMMENT)

First, lets discuss the change in "sovereignty." (You asked for examples and the voice of land owners and residency.) These are just a few examples.

• Alaska acquisition of America by the United States from the Russian Empire in the year 1867. Neither the Russian citizens or the indigenous inhabitants had a say in the matter. It was an arrangement between sovereign powers.
  
• The Philippines became a territory of the United States after the Spanish-American War. Under the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the islands to the United States for $20 million. In 1935 the Philippines became a self-governing commonwealth. Japan took over the country from 1942-1944, but the United States regained the islands in 1945, and full independence was granted in July, 1946. Again, the Philippine nationals or other indigenous inhabitants had no say in the matter of the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US.
  
• The Hawaiian Kingdom went through several stages, first after the multination bloodless coup d'état that deposed Queen Lili'uokalani, the Federal Government set up an independent republic.

A change in sovereignty does not always mean a change in civil rights or land ownership. One of the most startling examples, still in contest today, was the acquisition of Puerto Rico. In 1998, the conflict between the United States and Spain ended with Spain ceding Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the United States following the Spanish-American War. And Again, the Puerto Rican nationals had no say in the matter. It was an arrangement between sovereign powers. Oddly enough, while the US has entertained the idea of statehood, and allotted funds to hold a referendum by the Puerto Ricans, the Governor, Alejandro García Padilla, is allegedly trying to dissuade Congress (this year) from promoting statehood.​

The issue of displacement of the population is a secondary outcome, relative to the relationship between the distinct population types. In the case of the Arab Palestinian, long before apportionment, a running conflict had erupted between the two cultures. And it was this conflict that is the proximate cause of the displacement. When two cultures have irreconcilable differences, emphasis on "irreconcilable," then it leads to the types of conflicts we have seen relative to the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

And again, you (as well as others) are making a connection between "sovereignty" and "land ownership" and "residency."

Second, the displacement of the population is a secondary outcome, not associated with the action of "sovereignty" ---- BUT, that the sovereignty was the proximate cause. (I'll go into this below.)

Rocco, again you claim that the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" is somehow legitimate although the owners and people who resided on that land had no voice in its establishment...Can you give us an example where in the history of humankind this happened with the consent of the displaced population?

(COMMENT)

First, lets discuss the change in "sovereignty." (You asked for examples and the voice of land owners and residency.) These are just a few examples.

• 
  [*]Alaska acquisition of America by the United States from the Russian Empire in the year 1867. Neither the Russian citizens or the indigenous inhabitants had a say in the matter. It was an arrangement between sovereign powers.
  
  [*]The Philippines became a territory of the United States after the Spanish-American War. Under the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the islands to the United States for $20 million. In 1935 the Philippines became a self-governing commonwealth. Japan took over the country from 1942-1944, but the United States regained the islands in 1945, and full independence was granted in July, 1946. Again, the Philippine nationals or other indigenous inhabitants had no say in the matter of the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US.
  
  [*]The Hawaiian Kingdom went through several stages, first after the multination bloodless coup d'état that deposed Queen Lili'uokalani, the Federal Government set up an independent republic.
  

A change in sovereignty does not always mean a change in civil rights or land ownership. One of the most startling examples, still in contest today, was the acquisition of Puerto Rico. In 1998, the conflict between the United States and Spain ended with Spain ceding Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the United States following the Spanish-American War. And Again, the Puerto Rican nationals had no say in the matter. It was an arrangement between sovereign powers. Oddly enough, while the US has entertained the idea of statehood, and allotted funds to hold a referendum by the Puerto Ricans, the Governor, Alejandro García Padilla, is allegedly trying to dissuade Congress (this year) from promoting statehood.​

The issue of displacement of the population is a secondary outcome, relative to the relationship between the distinct population types. In the case of the Arab Palestinian, long before apportionment, a running conflict had erupted between the two cultures. And it was this conflict that is the proximate cause of the displacement. When two cultures have irreconcilable differences, emphasis on "irreconcilable," then it leads to the types of conflicts we have seen relative to the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

Most Respectfully,
R

I asked for CONSENT of the indigenous population not about a sovereignty change of an outside power.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Yes, I understood.

I asked for CONSENT of the indigenous population not about a sovereignty change of an outside power.

(COMMENT)

But I (emphasizing "I") could not find an example of where the indigenous population was actually given the option of "consent" relative to a such issues. While I'm sure there must be an example at some time in history, it certainly doesn't appear to be the norm.

If you are not talking about the consent of a change in sovereignty, what manner of consent are you addressing?

Do you have such an example?

Most Respectfully,
R