Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

[Boston1]

Yawn

 

[Coyote]

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

The local Arabs would kill the Jews when they felt there were too many.
Do you ever take a trip out of your little Liberal loop?

Keeping in mind the standards of the time, for the most part the coexisted well. They were treated better than they were in Christian Europe, and in certain eras prospered. You might take a crack at a history book

BULLSHIT, they were nothing more than slaves, and as many team Palestine members remind the board they were evicted from every country they settled in. That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next. I will leave you to read that history book to see what happened, that way it might sink in and make you realise the truth

Are you really this ignorant? Seriously? Again, no one is saying there was equality in that era or they were subject to expulsions, but Jews had more rights and at times flourished under Islam then they did under Christian empires. Comparisons are best made within the same era. European (Christian) hatred of Jews is long standing and entrenched before Islam even existed. Better take that log out of your eye.

Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[22]


Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[23]


Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[23]​

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

The local Arabs would kill the Jews when they felt there were too many.
Do you ever take a trip out of your little Liberal loop?

Keeping in mind the standards of the time, for the most part the coexisted well. They were treated better than they were in Christian Europe, and in certain eras prospered. You might take a crack at a history book

BULLSHIT, they were nothing more than slaves, and as many team Palestine members remind the board they were evicted from every country they settled in. That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next. I will leave you to read that history book to see what happened, that way it might sink in and make you realise the truth

Are you really this ignorant? Seriously? Again, no one is saying there was equality in that era or they were subject to expulsions, but Jews had more rights and at times flourished under Islam then they did under Christian empires. Comparisons are best made within the same era. European (Christian) hatred of Jews is long standing and entrenched before Islam even existed. Better take that log out of your eye.

Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[22]


Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[23]


Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[23]​

And the info box for your cut and paste says it all

This section may stray from the topic of the article



I have not said that Christians were not anti-Semitic, I argue that the muslims were more brutal and violent towards the Jews than the Christians where. In fact the same feelings from all non Jews lingers today against the Jews and they all stem from what the original Roman Christians believed and spread, that the Jews killed their god before he could perform the miracles they wanted to see.

What you said was: "That was during the time of the Islamic conquest of most of Europe, and because of the hatred for the Jews by the arabs the European nations saw the Jews as the reason they would be targeted next."

In other words - the Arab conquests brought anti-semitism with them which is patently untrue. Anti-semitism is older than Islam. Jews expelled from Europe often found haven in Islamic countries. Not perfect, but at least they were able to retain their communities, religion and professions. Countries like Turkey prospered because of the Jews Europe expelled - they were well educated, highly literate professional class.

As for Arab states being more brutal and violent towards Jews than Christian states, up until modern times, I think that is arguable. From Russia's pograms to Hitler's "Final Solution" to the forced conversions and expulsions of Spain - there's a lot of ugly history on the Christian side.

 

[aris2chat]

• 
  

  You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
  
  Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
  
  How freaking naïve can you be?

  
  
  
  They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

  
  
  
  Hold on a minute here.
  
  
  
  Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people
  
  
  
  from
  
  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc
  
  
  
  Quote
  
  After the initial Muslim expansion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Islamic Spain
  • Islamic conquest of Turkey
  • The Ottoman Empire
  • Conversion of places of worship into mosques
  • Islamic slavery and piracy

  Modern killings for Islam
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Summary of modern killings for Islam
  • The Middle East conflict

  
  
  Islam and human rights
  
  
  
  Islam and freedom of thought
  
  
  
  Islamic states
  
  
  
  Islamic Fascism
  
  
  
  The Islamist way of war
  
  
  
  The Islamic street
  
  
  
  Killings for Christianity

  
  
  
  Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?
  
  
  
  I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.
  
  
  
  History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..
  
  
  
  Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.

  
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Pro-free private life: Atheist. Pro-science. Pro-reason. Pro-free speech. Pro-liberal democracy.
• Pro-free economic life: Pro-capitalist. Pro-West.
• Pro-interventionist: Anti-isolationist. End tyranny everywhere. End communism. End Islamic law.

More common sense than propagandist that has been doing this for more than twenty years

"Grand Deception" Documentary by Steven Emerson Racks Up Film Festival Honors
The Grand Deception

Can't be afraid speak out, call it what it is and stop playing word games
Doesn't matter if it is iran, iraq, syria, palestine or groups like MB, ISIS and al-qaida.
Arab nazis, baath, fascists, nationalists, caliphate, Islamists, jihadists...........................

They should be judge by what they say in arabic and what they do and who they target.

It is not the peace and tolerance that is supposed to be Islam but intent on conquest and forced submission , or death

Humphry is not leftist enough to be PC?

 

[Coyote]

• 
  

  They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

  
  
  
  Hold on a minute here.
  
  
  
  Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people
  
  
  
  from
  
  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc
  
  
  
  Quote
  
  After the initial Muslim expansion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Islamic Spain
  • Islamic conquest of Turkey
  • The Ottoman Empire
  • Conversion of places of worship into mosques
  • Islamic slavery and piracy

  Modern killings for Islam
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Summary of modern killings for Islam
  • The Middle East conflict

  
  
  Islam and human rights
  
  
  
  Islam and freedom of thought
  
  
  
  Islamic states
  
  
  
  Islamic Fascism
  
  
  
  The Islamist way of war
  
  
  
  The Islamic street
  
  
  
  Killings for Christianity

  
  
  
  Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?
  
  
  
  I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.
  
  
  
  History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..
  
  
  
  Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.

  
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Pro-free private life: Atheist. Pro-science. Pro-reason. Pro-free speech. Pro-liberal democracy.
• Pro-free economic life: Pro-capitalist. Pro-West.
• Pro-interventionist: Anti-isolationist. End tyranny everywhere. End communism. End Islamic law.

More common sense than propagandist that has been doing this for more than twenty years

"Grand Deception" Documentary by Steven Emerson Racks Up Film Festival Honors
The Grand Deception

Can't be afraid speak out, call it what it is and stop playing word games
Doesn't matter if it is iran, iraq, syria, palestine or groups like MB, ISIS and al-qaida.
Arab nazis, baath, fascists, nationalists, caliphate, Islamists, jihadists...........................

They should be judge by what they say in arabic and what they do and who they target.

It is not the peace and tolerance that is supposed to be Islam but intent on conquest and forced submission , or death

Humphry is not leftist enough to be PC?

Or...is it that Humphry speaks to your own bias'?

What are his credentials? Who is he other than his self proclaimed name tags? Why should take him seriously for no other reason than that he defies PC?

 

[aris2chat]

• 
  

  Hold on a minute here.
  
  
  
  Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people
  
  
  
  from
  
  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc
  
  
  
  Quote
  
  After the initial Muslim expansion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Islamic Spain
  • Islamic conquest of Turkey
  • The Ottoman Empire
  • Conversion of places of worship into mosques
  • Islamic slavery and piracy

  Modern killings for Islam
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  • Summary of modern killings for Islam
  • The Middle East conflict

  
  
  Islam and human rights
  
  
  
  Islam and freedom of thought
  
  
  
  Islamic states
  
  
  
  Islamic Fascism
  
  
  
  The Islamist way of war
  
  
  
  The Islamic street
  
  
  
  Killings for Christianity

  
  
  
  Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?
  
  
  
  I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.
  
  
  
  History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..
  
  
  
  Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.

  
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Pro-free private life: Atheist. Pro-science. Pro-reason. Pro-free speech. Pro-liberal democracy.
• Pro-free economic life: Pro-capitalist. Pro-West.
• Pro-interventionist: Anti-isolationist. End tyranny everywhere. End communism. End Islamic law.

More common sense than propagandist that has been doing this for more than twenty years

"Grand Deception" Documentary by Steven Emerson Racks Up Film Festival Honors
The Grand Deception

Can't be afraid speak out, call it what it is and stop playing word games
Doesn't matter if it is iran, iraq, syria, palestine or groups like MB, ISIS and al-qaida.
Arab nazis, baath, fascists, nationalists, caliphate, Islamists, jihadists...........................

They should be judge by what they say in arabic and what they do and who they target.

It is not the peace and tolerance that is supposed to be Islam but intent on conquest and forced submission , or death

Humphry is not leftist enough to be PC?

Or...is it that Humphry speaks to your own bias'?

What are his credentials? Who is he other than his self proclaimed name tags? Why should take him seriously for no other reason than that he defies PC?

He covers a wide range of topics many with wiki and encyclopedic references but historically correct.
Did you even read his familes political background or his background or listen to his lectures?

His web site is not a "blog"

 

[Coyote]

• 
  

  Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?
  
  
  
  I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.
  
  
  
  History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

  
  
  
  There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..
  
  
  
  Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.

  
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Pro-free private life: Atheist. Pro-science. Pro-reason. Pro-free speech. Pro-liberal democracy.
• Pro-free economic life: Pro-capitalist. Pro-West.
• Pro-interventionist: Anti-isolationist. End tyranny everywhere. End communism. End Islamic law.

More common sense than propagandist that has been doing this for more than twenty years

"Grand Deception" Documentary by Steven Emerson Racks Up Film Festival Honors
The Grand Deception

Can't be afraid speak out, call it what it is and stop playing word games
Doesn't matter if it is iran, iraq, syria, palestine or groups like MB, ISIS and al-qaida.
Arab nazis, baath, fascists, nationalists, caliphate, Islamists, jihadists...........................

They should be judge by what they say in arabic and what they do and who they target.

It is not the peace and tolerance that is supposed to be Islam but intent on conquest and forced submission , or death

Humphry is not leftist enough to be PC?

Or...is it that Humphry speaks to your own bias'?

What are his credentials? Who is he other than his self proclaimed name tags? Why should take him seriously for no other reason than that he defies PC?

He covers a wide range of topics many with wiki and encyclopedic references but historically correct.
Did you even read his familes political background or his background or listen to his lectures?

His web site is not a "blog"

What makes him any better or more accurate than Electronic Intifada? Mondoweiss?

He hates the political left.
He hates Islam unconditionally.
He conflates leftists and Nazi's.

Just look at this page: The left and Islamism

It's like reading Stormfront or EI. And hate is "ok" because it's directed at certain groups and it's "not PC" so that makes it ok, no critical thinking required?"

 

[HenryBHough]

Those doggone Jews! Where do they think they are....

Colorado: A Sad Story of What Can Happen Without a Permit - Natural Building Blog

Pembrokeshire: Eco-couple told to pull down their 'hobbit home' made entirely out of natural materials after they built it without planning permission

Seems a worldwide problem.....

 

[aris2chat]

Those doggone Jews! Where do they think they are....

Colorado: A Sad Story of What Can Happen Without a Permit - Natural Building Blog

Pembrokeshire: Eco-couple told to pull down their 'hobbit home' made entirely out of natural materials after they built it without planning permission

Seems a worldwide problem.....

That hobbit house was absolutely delightful

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too.

It's interesting, how you use a term that is almost completely unknown outside of extremist antisemitic hate sites.

I can't say I'm surprised, and I imagine few other good people are, either.

 

[Boston1]

There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too.

It's interesting, how you use a term that is almost completely unknown outside of extremist antisemitic hate sites.

I can't say I'm surprised, and I imagine few other good people are, either.

I never looked it up, don't really care. I'm sure its just another slanderous remark against the Judaic people for managing to survive all the bigotry and hatred.

The funny thing is, what other nations would even remotely be questioned over this issue. Concerning who else can you find a random group of people arguing that a sovereign nation doesn't have the right to maintain a system of building codes. And yes that require a permit to build.

Its beyond stupid.

 

[Humanity]

Who says they are building illegally

Well, that's easy to answer....

Everyone except you zionuts!

So no adult intelligent answer as shown by your use of your made up term again.

So how are they building illegally when the land was Jewish before being stolen in 1949 ?

Hahahaha you are, seriously, the dumbest zionut on this forum... I don't even know why people even bother responding to your ridiculous posts...

Made up term is your "islamonazi"... I'm not sure there are too many Islamists interested in German nationalism! But there are plenty of nuts who are zionists!

Zionut -

Any person, Jewish or otherwise, whose support for the state of Israel reaches levels of extreme irrationality and potential insanity. Believes any action of any kind undertaken by Israel is politically and morally correct, regardless of objective evidence to the contrary, and believes any criticism of Israel, however mild or justified, to be motivated by anti-semitism (or self-loathing when made by anyone Jewish).

Sums you up perfectly Phoney!

Oh, here's the dictonary reference http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zionut

Your, blind ignorance is hilarious and, really, quite sad Phoney...

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ONLY country in the WORLD that believes the settlements AREN'T illegal... Go on Phoney, have a guess.... ISRAEL....

That's why they are illegal settlements!

 

[Phoenall]

Probably the same way that those who fight for the RoR for the Palestinians demand it for all of the descendants and not just the few thousand (hundred) remaining who lived in the territory prior to the invasion of the hostile Arab armies.

I don't happen to believe in any right of return for descendents. If they never lived there, they can not possibly be "returnees" and labeling them so is disengenius.

So this means that the Palestinians are no longer refugees and don't have a right of return ?

It means those that were actually driven out in the ongoing conflicts should have a right of return, but not their descendents.

So the palestini9ans due a right of return have all been accommodated, and the rest are just greedy land thieves after a taste of the high life. I have some land deeds to Tel Aviv showing the latest buildings being Palestinian owned in 1947, want to buy them ?

Have they? Do you have a source indicating that?

Demographics of Israel and the inability of the UN to class the arab muslims as refugees. Less than 100,000 where driven out, most over the age of 20 in 1948. Today there are 6 million demanding a right of return, and this figure will jump after the next skirmish. Many wave pictures of modern buildings that were not even built when they where alive and point to windows to show where they slept

 

[Humanity]

His web site is not a "blog"

Really?

Blog

 

[Phoenall]

Specific examples of Israeli returnees building illegally?

How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?

And this shows again that you have no sympathy for the Jews who were forcibly removed from their homes in 1949 and deported from their lands. As far as you are concerned the Jews had no rights to the land they bought and owned and so could never return to them when the situation changed. Over 1 million Jews were forcibly evicted or mass murdered in 1949 and all you say is they were just Jews, and that is the difference between me a civilised person and you a rabid Jew hater.


Now produce the evidence for your claim that the Jews had never lived in the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem prior to the war of independence of 1948. Because the evidence they did has been posted innumerable times on this board in the past

Where the hell did I claim that?

Cant you read your own replies now


How odd. They did not live there before, therefore how can they be "returnees"?


Or are you having a senior blonde moment and forgetting what you write about the Jews, and what you are denying them all the time.

Correct. If they had not lived there, then they aren't "returnees" - they are immigrants, migrants, etc. We are talking INDIVIDUAL people Phoenall, try to keep up. If your ancestors came from Podunk NJ but you've never set foot there you aren't a "returnee".

So As I said neither are the Palestinians as many were born in another country. Time the UN stepped in and told them to find somewhere to live that will accept them as citizens

 

[Phoenall]

You are saying that every time you infer that Arabs can live side by side with Jews.
Arabs can't even live side by side with each other.
How freaking naïve can you be?

They did for centuries. It's not naivity, it's precedence.

Hold on a minute here.

Since when have Arabs lived peacefully with the Judaic people

from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwizvvyMyqvLAhVokIMKHbFeALwQFgg5MAQ&url=http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html&usg=AFQjCNE84fvZl6E-BMIVmzOLN5DEqxrtjQ&sig2=QrRTq0yZMyqRA5S0slTRYg&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Quote
After the initial Muslim expansion

• Islamic Spain
• Islamic conquest of Turkey
• The Ottoman Empire
• Conversion of places of worship into mosques
• Islamic slavery and piracy

Modern killings for Islam

• Summary of modern killings for Islam
• The Middle East conflict

Islam and human rights

Islam and freedom of thought

Islamic states

Islamic Fascism

The Islamist way of war

The Islamic street

Killings for Christianity

Can you not come up with better sources than Mark Humpheries? Seriously? How about historians? You know, those people that research history?

I'm not saying it was milk and honey, but within the context of the times (which were much more brutal) - yes, much of the time they did coexist successfully and even flourished. They were far better treated than they were in the Christian countries of that era. That's not to say they were not subject to the whims of rulers and expulsions, but you can't really compare it to modern standards of rights and equality becuase those were largely non-existant.

History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's rooms full of antifada fools writing for Wiki. And you complain about Humphries.

There's rooms full of "hasbara" fools writing for Wiki too. They balance each other off. Wiki has good editorial policy, requires sources and citations and is transparent..

Who is MarkHumphry.com...what are his credentials, what sources does he cite, does he have a bias? He's a blogger.

IS there and do you even know what hasbara is, or are you going by what your handlers on here tell you

 

[Phoenall]

Who says they are building illegally

Well, that's easy to answer....

Everyone except you zionuts!

So no adult intelligent answer as shown by your use of your made up term again.

So how are they building illegally when the land was Jewish before being stolen in 1949 ?

Hahahaha you are, seriously, the dumbest zionut on this forum... I don't even know why people even bother responding to your ridiculous posts...

Made up term is your "islamonazi"... I'm not sure there are too many Islamists interested in German nationalism! But there are plenty of nuts who are zionists!

Zionut -

Any person, Jewish or otherwise, whose support for the state of Israel reaches levels of extreme irrationality and potential insanity. Believes any action of any kind undertaken by Israel is politically and morally correct, regardless of objective evidence to the contrary, and believes any criticism of Israel, however mild or justified, to be motivated by anti-semitism (or self-loathing when made by anyone Jewish).

Sums you up perfectly Phoney!

Oh, here's the dictonary reference Urban Dictionary: Zionut

Your, blind ignorance is hilarious and, really, quite sad Phoney...

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ONLY country in the WORLD that believes the settlements AREN'T illegal... Go on Phoney, have a guess.... ISRAEL....

That's why they are illegal settlements!

And like many other cases International law disagrees which is why the UN, ICC/ICJ and other international bodies don't take action against Israel

The Oslo accords allows the building of settlements and the recommendation of right of return allows the building of settlements. Lastly the LoN mandate of Palestine permits the building of settlements anywhere in Palestine.

Trumps your hearsay and islamonazi propaganda

 

[Humanity]

I'm sure it's just another slanderous remark against the Judaic people

You should look stuff up before making yourself look like an idiot AGAIN!

It's a Hebrew word used by the Israeli government!

 

[Humanity]

Who says they are building illegally

Well, that's easy to answer....

Everyone except you zionuts!

So no adult intelligent answer as shown by your use of your made up term again.

So how are they building illegally when the land was Jewish before being stolen in 1949 ?

Hahahaha you are, seriously, the dumbest zionut on this forum... I don't even know why people even bother responding to your ridiculous posts...

Made up term is your "islamonazi"... I'm not sure there are too many Islamists interested in German nationalism! But there are plenty of nuts who are zionists!

Zionut -

Any person, Jewish or otherwise, whose support for the state of Israel reaches levels of extreme irrationality and potential insanity. Believes any action of any kind undertaken by Israel is politically and morally correct, regardless of objective evidence to the contrary, and believes any criticism of Israel, however mild or justified, to be motivated by anti-semitism (or self-loathing when made by anyone Jewish).

Sums you up perfectly Phoney!

Oh, here's the dictonary reference Urban Dictionary: Zionut

Your, blind ignorance is hilarious and, really, quite sad Phoney...

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ONLY country in the WORLD that believes the settlements AREN'T illegal... Go on Phoney, have a guess.... ISRAEL....

That's why they are illegal settlements!

And like many other cases International law disagrees which is why the UN, ICC/ICJ and other international bodies don't take action against Israel

The Oslo accords allows the building of settlements and the recommendation of right of return allows the building of settlements. Lastly the LoN mandate of Palestine permits the building of settlements anywhere in Palestine.

Trumps your hearsay and islamonazi propaganda

Oh come come now Phoney....

Are you seriously this stupid?

There is no hearsay, just fact, yes, we all know you don't like facts that show Israel in a bad light (zionut), but you simply have to accept that Israel IS breaking international law...

The UNSC has, what, 6, 7 or more resolutions against Israel for the illegal occupation?

That dummy, is not hearsay!

 

[Boston1]

I'm sure it's just another slanderous remark against the Judaic people

You should look stuff up before making yourself look like an idiot AGAIN!

It's a Hebrew word used by the Israeli government!

Thats OK Flag boy I don't find your posts sufficiently entertaining or even just relevant enough to bother wasting my time on the minutia.

Actually I was just noticing that your apparently incapable of addressing the subject and would prefer to switch and bait. Not very bright as that kinda thing may be standard in grade school debates, but not among adults.

The simple fact is that much of the areas in Israel inhabited by Arab Muslims are actually controlled by Arab Muslims in so far as building is concerned. They issue their own permits. Israel has nothing to do with it other than playing the typical scape goat for Arab incompetence.

Gaza is completely independent, among other things proving that statehood has nothing to do with the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mindset. Gaza could be a state anytime it wants to if the Arab Muslims ever decided to quit focussing on the hatred and start focussing on improving their own standard of living.

Again Gaza is in complete control of its own building permits. Again a false claim that Arabs can't get permits.

Even in the heart of Israel, Jerusalem, about 10% of building permits are granted to Arabs who make up about 20% of Israel's population. So whats the problem ? Seems obvious that the Arabs don't hold a candle to the Judaic people when it comes to economic strength; so why shouldn't their incompetency in financial matters be reflected in their lower likelihood of being able to afford a building permit ?

Blame blame blame is all you people do. Ever thought of taking responsibility for your own condition and making something of yourself in life ?

Quit whining about building permits and focus on improving yourself and maybe someday you can afford a house like the rest of us civilized people.

 

[Coyote]

.....

I'm sure it's just another slanderous remark against the Judaic people

You should look stuff up before making yourself look like an idiot AGAIN!

It's a Hebrew word used by the Israeli government!

Thats OK Flag boy I don't find your posts sufficiently entertaining or even just relevant enough to bother wasting my time on the minutia.

Actually I was just noticing that your apparently incapable of addressing the subject and would prefer to switch and bait. Not very bright as that kinda thing may be standard in grade school debates, but not among adults.

The simple fact is that much of the areas in Israel inhabited by Arab Muslims are actually controlled by Arab Muslims in so far as building is concerned. They issue their own permits. Israel has nothing to do with it other than playing the typical scape goat for Arab incompetence.

Gaza is completely independent, among other things proving that statehood has nothing to do with the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mindset. Gaza could be a state anytime it wants to if the Arab Muslims ever decided to quit focussing on the hatred and start focussing on improving their own standard of living.

Again Gaza is in complete control of its own building permits. Again a false claim that Arabs can't get permits.

Even in the heart of Israel, Jerusalem, about 10% of building permits are granted to Arabs who make up about 20% of Israel's population. So whats the problem ? Seems obvious that the Arabs don't hold a candle to the Judaic people when it comes to economic strength; so why shouldn't their incompetency in financial matters be reflected in their lower likelihood of being able to afford a building permit ?

Blame blame blame is all you people do. Ever thought of taking responsibility for your own condition and making something of yourself in life ?

Quit whining about building permits and focus on improving yourself and maybe someday you can afford a house like the rest of us civilized people.

The issue of permits is not in Gaza, but in areas controlled by Israel.

Palestinian building permits 'political', admits Israel

In practice, almost all Palestinian applications for a building permit are rejected, with the Civil Administration granting only a handful of permits...

...In 2014, the Civil Administration granted just one Palestinian building permit, according to Israeli planning NGO Bimkom.

In the same period, Israel carried 493 demolitions, displacing 969 people, UN figures show.

Unable to get "legal" permission, Palestinians are faced with either leaving or building illegally.

Israel regularly sends bulldozers to demolish hundreds of homes and other structures every year in a move sharply condemned by rights groups and the international community.​

Compare that to illegal Jewish settlements. Some (very few) are demolished. Many illegally built on government land have been provided with government-subsidized infrastructure (even while illegal) or retroactively legalized.

Israeli government challenges the law to embrace illegal settler outposts

Strategically located on a hill like most outposts, Migron’s residents have lived in illegal structures since 2002. The Israeli Ministry of Housing and Construction generously funded them with more than US$1 million, according to the so-called Sasson report.
​

Israel intends to authorize West Bank outpost bloc containing hundreds of illegal buildings - Diplomacy and Defense

Israel intends to authorize a bloc of five West Bank outposts east of Shilo that covers six square kilometers and includes hundreds of illegal structures.

The state submitted the announcement to the High Court of Justice in response a petition filed last year by the human rights group Yesh Din and the owners of the lands in question. The petition calls for immediate evacuation of the Adei Ad outpost because it was built without any building permits on private lands, and because outpost residents have been involved in violent acts threatening local security. ​