Israeli Army Forces Enter Gaza, Open Fire On Palestinian Farmers

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, you make a stab at it --- but, unpersuasive and often misinterpreted in both fact and relevance.

Keep it up. the more I get to post the fact and the source document the more thinking people will begin to realize that almost everything the believe is Israeli propaganda.

(COMMENT)

Most of the time, you keep reaching back to an era of more than half a century ago; much like our friend P F Tinmore. In your most recent posts, you've reached back even a century ago. For whatever that is worth, you don't think like the key decision makers of that time period. Yes! there are documents that present opposing views. But in the end, the convening authority (the League of Nations and the successor United Nations) made a series of decisions that lead to the Partition of the the former Mandate [GA/RES/181(II)]. And, the convening authority understood the complaints and issues of both sides of the equation (Israeli-Palestinian) of the day. They were painfully clear. All that is important from that decision is --- the Arab Palestinian did everything it could to undermine that decision.

No matter what you post today, about your interpretation of what happened 5, 8, or 10 Generations ago, what is important is what is happening today and the character of the Palestinian today. And you must remember, just as HAMAS insists, that Arab Palestinian can not focus on accepted concepts of Universal Human Rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

 

[Kondor3]

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

May 15, 1948.

The day of the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.

The day they ran, rather than stand their ground and fight for themselves.

Use 'em or lose 'em.

For all intents and purposes, any snowball's chance-in-hell that they ever had, of actually becoming a country, evaporated on that very day.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

A cowardice that we still see today, as Palestinian fighters continue to hide behind the skirts of their women and children.

They got the destiny they chose for themselves, by running like rabbits.

Enjoy.

"He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day."

 

[P F Tinmore]

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

May 15, 1948.

The day of the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.

The day they ran rather than stand their ground and fight for themselves.

Use 'em or lose 'em.

For all intents and purposes, any snowball's chance-in-hell that they ever had, of actually becoming a country, evaporated on that very day.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

"He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day."

Wrong!

Wars do not change rights.

 

[Kondor3]

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

May 15, 1948.

The day of the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948.

The day they ran rather than stand their ground and fight for themselves.

Use 'em or lose 'em.

For all intents and purposes, any snowball's chance-in-hell that they ever had, of actually becoming a country, evaporated on that very day.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

"He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day."

Wrong!

Wars do not change rights.

That's funny.

I don't see them exercising those rights.

There are Paper Rights, and there are Real World Rights.

The Palestinians have an over-abundance of Paper Rights.

None of which signify in the Real World - in practice.

If you can't hold your own as a country, then your country will never exist.

The Palestinians never could - and never will - be able to hold their own country.

Best to break up and scatter back into the surrounding regional countryside that spawned them.

 

[Billo_Really]

I already proved your 'invasion' allegation to be a lie. The British controlled the land, NOT the Palestinian Arabs. The British INVITED the European Jews and facilitted their immigration. That's not an invasion you moron.

Much of that, was illegal immigration.

"All through those 30 years, Britain (admitted) into Palestine, year by year, a quota of Jewish immigrants that varied according to the strength of the respective pressures of the Arabs and Jews at the time. These immigrants could not have come in if they had not been shielded by a British chevaux-de-frise. If Palestine had remained under Ottoman Turkish rule, or if it had become an independent Arab state in 1918, Jewish immigrants would never have been admitted into Palestine in large enough numbers to enable them to overwhelm the Palestinian Arabs in this Arab people's own country. The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace."
Arnold J. Toynbee - eminent world historian

BTW, all those examples RoccoR listed, were started by Zionists.

And you have yet to link me to any attacks, massacres of Arabs that preceded the attacks Rocco posted.

That's because there were none, just like I told you. The violence didn't start, until the Zionists showed up.

We wish to point out here that the Jewish population of Palestine who lived there before the War never had any trouble with their Arab neighbours. They enjoyed the same rights and privileges as their fellow Ottoman citizens, and never agitated for the Declaration of November 1917. It is the Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration ...
- Winston Churchill

Que pasa, mutha?

Your quote is useless.
The problem with you is that you are incapable of admitting you're wrong.

You need to look in the mirror on that woman.

Either way, I have proved all your allegations to be wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat your lies, they will never become true...

And you're not proving anything, just pointing to someone else's "alleged" proof.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One of your amazing attributes, is in your ability to defensively ask the "wrong question;" or a question that seems to suggest some concept not in play.

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

(COMMENT)

"Inalienable rights" --- something that HAMAS questions --- have no "expiration date." But the rights themselves, in order to have meaning, must be made active (put in use) by the holder (in this case the Arab Palestinian). An inalienable right" means nothing if it is not exercised. It does not expire --- it is abandon. The fruit from an "inalienable right" is "condiciones sine quibus non;" that is --- you must exercise it before you reap the benefits.

Examples:

Palestinian leaders argued that participation in the legislative council would be tantamount to acceptance of the British Mandate and Balfour policy, which they feared would lead to their subjugation under a Jewish majority in an eventual state. The poor election turnout in February 1923 caused the High Commissioner Sir Herbert Louis Samuel to shelve the Legislative Council proposal and revert to the idea of an advisory council (AC). But Samuel failed to convince Palestinian leaders to sit on a revised AC; nor was his subsequent proposal to establish an "Arab Agency" (to be parallel to the "Jewish Agency" recognized under the mandate) any more successful at winning the cooperation of local politicians. Samuel thereupon abandoned the idea of encouraging popular participation in the governing of Palestine.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by the Jewish Agency leaders. However, the Arab Palestinians (thru the Arab Higher Committee reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945) rejected this plan on the grounds that this decision violates the rights of Palestinian Arabs present in majority in the country; they were supported by the Arab League in their rejection.

Regional media (Sunday, February 02, 2014) reports over the weekend indicated that Israel is set to accept US Secretary of State John Kerry's framework proposal for reaching a final status peace agreement, while the Palestinians are looking to stall or outright reject the plan.

The Palestinian Authority on Tuesday rejected an Israeli offer to supply blood to Gaza, the Algemeiner reported (Jul. 15, 2014 ).​

Don't blame the outcomes on others when you had the opportunities to work from within the system to change things.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One of your amazing attributes, is in your ability to defensively ask the "wrong question;" or a question that seems to suggest some concept not in play.

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

(COMMENT)

"Inalienable rights" --- something that HAMAS questions --- have no "expiration date." But the rights themselves, in order to have meaning, must be made active (put in use) by the holder (in this case the Arab Palestinian). An inalienable right" means nothing if it is not exercised. It does not expire --- it is abandon. The fruit from an "inalienable right" is "condiciones sine quibus non;" that is --- you must exercise it before you reap the benefits.

Examples:

Palestinian leaders argued that participation in the legislative council would be tantamount to acceptance of the British Mandate and Balfour policy, which they feared would lead to their subjugation under a Jewish majority in an eventual state. The poor election turnout in February 1923 caused the High Commissioner Sir Herbert Louis Samuel to shelve the Legislative Council proposal and revert to the idea of an advisory council (AC). But Samuel failed to convince Palestinian leaders to sit on a revised AC; nor was his subsequent proposal to establish an "Arab Agency" (to be parallel to the "Jewish Agency" recognized under the mandate) any more successful at winning the cooperation of local politicians. Samuel thereupon abandoned the idea of encouraging popular participation in the governing of Palestine.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by the Jewish Agency leaders. However, the Arab Palestinians (thru the Arab Higher Committee reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945) rejected this plan on the grounds that this decision violates the rights of Palestinian Arabs present in majority in the country; they were supported by the Arab League in their rejection.

Regional media (Sunday, February 02, 2014) reports over the weekend indicated that Israel is set to accept US Secretary of State John Kerry's framework proposal for reaching a final status peace agreement, while the Palestinians are looking to stall or outright reject the plan.

The Palestinian Authority on Tuesday rejected an Israeli offer to supply blood to Gaza, the Algemeiner reported (Jul. 15, 2014 ).​

Don't blame the outcomes on others when you had the opportunities to work from within the system to change things.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

One of your amazing attributes, is in your ability to defensively ask the "wrong question;" or a question that seems to suggest some concept not in play.

When did the Palestinian's inalienable rights expire?

Give me a date.

(COMMENT)

"Inalienable rights" --- something that HAMAS questions --- have no "expiration date." But the rights themselves, in order to have meaning, must be made active (put in use) by the holder (in this case the Arab Palestinian). An inalienable right" means nothing if it is not exercised. It does not expire --- it is abandon. The fruit from an "inalienable right" is "condiciones sine quibus non;" that is --- you must exercise it before you reap the benefits.

Examples:

Palestinian leaders argued that participation in the legislative council would be tantamount to acceptance of the British Mandate and Balfour policy, which they feared would lead to their subjugation under a Jewish majority in an eventual state. The poor election turnout in February 1923 caused the High Commissioner Sir Herbert Louis Samuel to shelve the Legislative Council proposal and revert to the idea of an advisory council (AC). But Samuel failed to convince Palestinian leaders to sit on a revised AC; nor was his subsequent proposal to establish an "Arab Agency" (to be parallel to the "Jewish Agency" recognized under the mandate) any more successful at winning the cooperation of local politicians. Samuel thereupon abandoned the idea of encouraging popular participation in the governing of Palestine.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by the Jewish Agency leaders. However, the Arab Palestinians (thru the Arab Higher Committee reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945) rejected this plan on the grounds that this decision violates the rights of Palestinian Arabs present in majority in the country; they were supported by the Arab League in their rejection.

Regional media (Sunday, February 02, 2014) reports over the weekend indicated that Israel is set to accept US Secretary of State John Kerry's framework proposal for reaching a final status peace agreement, while the Palestinians are looking to stall or outright reject the plan.

The Palestinian Authority on Tuesday rejected an Israeli offer to supply blood to Gaza, the Algemeiner reported (Jul. 15, 2014 ).​

Don't blame the outcomes on others when you had the opportunities to work from within the system to change things.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are a piece of work, Rocco.

Did you ever consider that the Palestinians did not want to legitimize a basically unjust system.

 

[montelatici]

There was no way to change things Rocco. The gerrymandered Jewish area of the partition would have left Christians and Muslims representing 45% of the population under Jew rule. I am a Christian, I would not want to be ruled by Jews. The Palestinians felt the same way. What did they, the Christians and Muslims, do to be required to be ruled by Jews?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Thanks!

You are a piece of work, Rocco.

Did you ever consider that the Palestinians did not want to legitimize a basically unjust system.

(COMMENT)

Did you ever consider that the Arab Palestinian did not want to participate in the process and make a better peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Thanks!

You are a piece of work, Rocco.

Did you ever consider that the Palestinians did not want to legitimize a basically unjust system.

(COMMENT)

Did you ever consider that the Arab Palestinian did not want to participate in the process and make a better peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, but that was not going to happen while Palestine was being colonized no matter what they did.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Thanks!

You are a piece of work, Rocco.

Did you ever consider that the Palestinians did not want to legitimize a basically unjust system.

(COMMENT)

Did you ever consider that the Arab Palestinian did not want to participate in the process and make a better peace?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why should a people invaded by people from another continent agree to be ruled by the invaders?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The people of Palestine have been ruled by external sovereign authority for a thousand years.

Why should a people invaded by people from another continent agree to be ruled by the invaders?

(COMMENT)

• The Jewish people didn't invade, they immigrated.
• The Jewish immigrated to the Jewish National Home as established by the Allied Powers in 1920.
• The Jewish did not seek agreement from the Arabs.
• The Jewish People exercised their right of self-determination under the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as established by the cognizant authority (the United Nations).
• The Arab Palestinian declined to help in the rule of the Mandated Territory:
  • Declined to establish an Arab Agency.
  • Declined to participate in the Partition Planning.

The decisions made all those decades ago, were made by those that participated in process. In the "Question of Palestine" --- the People do not have government by the majority; but rather --- have government by the majority who participate. The Arab Palestinian was offered several opportunities over sever decades to participate and they declined to exercise their "inalienable rights." However the Jewish People took advantage of those rights.

You have not legitimate grievance to the outcome of government if you don't participate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

What else can you call people that leave one continent and settle on another and expel the people that were living there?

I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and have received all the Sacraments but one, but there would be no shame in being a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever religion.

Wow, you're leaving a lot of information out. Your take on history is terrible.

Please indicate what has been left out.

The wars that the Palestinians started which resulted in their expulsion.

How can that be? The Jews went to Palestine from Europe, another continent. How can defending one's land be considered starting a war? Logic is not your forte', is it.

Attacking people and instigating a war has consequences. When Palestinians attack Israel, it's always self decence, but the other way around is always agression to you.
However, the Jews only started attacking Arabs in response to Arabs attacking them (I say Arabs because they were not referred to as Palestinians then)
Then 5 Arab states invaded the region and statted a huge war which resulted in the expulsion of Palestinians (some left their villages at the order of Arab leaders).
I'm not surprised that I have to explain this to you.
Stop buying your history books from the Hamas book store.

The Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Jews?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

The people of Palestine have been ruled by external sovereign authority for a thousand years.

Why should a people invaded by people from another continent agree to be ruled by the invaders?

(COMMENT)

• The Jewish people didn't invade, they immigrated.
• The Jewish immigrated to the Jewish National Home as established by the Allied Powers in 1920.
• The Jewish did not seek agreement from the Arabs.
• The Jewish People exercised their right of self-determination under the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as established by the cognizant authority (the United Nations).
• The Arab Palestinian declined to help in the rule of the Mandated Territory:
  • Declined to establish an Arab Agency.
  • Declined to participate in the Partition Planning.

The decisions made all those decades ago, were made by those that participated in process. In the "Question of Palestine" --- the People do not have government by the majority; but rather --- have government by the majority who participate. The Arab Palestinian was offered several opportunities over sever decades to participate and they declined to exercise their "inalienable rights." However the Jewish People took advantage of those rights.

You have not legitimate grievance to the outcome of government if you don't participate.

Most Respectfully,
R

• The Jewish people didn't invade, they immigrated.

No they didn't.

 

[Hossfly]

Wow, you're leaving a lot of information out. Your take on history is terrible.

Please indicate what has been left out.

The wars that the Palestinians started which resulted in their expulsion.

How can that be? The Jews went to Palestine from Europe, another continent. How can defending one's land be considered starting a war? Logic is not your forte', is it.

Attacking people and instigating a war has consequences. When Palestinians attack Israel, it's always self decence, but the other way around is always agression to you.
However, the Jews only started attacking Arabs in response to Arabs attacking them (I say Arabs because they were not referred to as Palestinians then)
Then 5 Arab states invaded the region and statted a huge war which resulted in the expulsion of Palestinians (some left their villages at the order of Arab leaders).
I'm not surprised that I have to explain this to you.
Stop buying your history books from the Hamas book store.

The Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Jews?

That's the 49th time you've asked that ridiculous question.

 

[Andylusion]

Earlier there was a report of Israel shooting at Palestinian fisherman. Now there is another Israeli attack in spite of a cease fire.
---------------------------
Gaza City, October 2 (RHC)-- Israeli army vehicles have entered the southern Gaza Strip and soldiers opened fire on Palestinian agricultural areas in a flagrant violation of a recent ceasefire agreement.

According to reports, at least a dozen Israeli military vehicles entered Gaza from a gate east of the southern city of Khan Yunis on Wednesday, crossing some 200 meters into the Palestinian territory.

Israeli soldiers then fired shots on Palestinian farms. Witnesses say the assault, which occurred in the early morning, forced agricultural workers to leave their lands. No injuries have been reported so far.

Earlier this week, Israeli military forces shot and injured a Palestinian farmer in northern Gaza near a fence separating Israeli-occupied territories from the blockaded coastal enclave. An Israeli military spokesperson claimed the farmer had come too close to the border fence.

Radio Havana Cuba Israeli Army Forces Enter Gaza Open Fire on Palestinian Farmers

What was the provacation that caused the IDF to react, Pinmore?

I don't know.

Isn't it your job to give Israel's excuses?

In other words, you have no idea what happened, or why, but you are passing judgement before knowing any of the facts at all.

OH!!!!.... I'm sorry... you are a Palestinian supporter. For a moment that didn't make sense to me, but now it's all so clear.

 

[toastman]

I already proved your 'invasion' allegation to be a lie. The British controlled the land, NOT the Palestinian Arabs. The British INVITED the European Jews and facilitted their immigration. That's not an invasion you moron.

Much of that, was illegal immigration.

"All through those 30 years, Britain (admitted) into Palestine, year by year, a quota of Jewish immigrants that varied according to the strength of the respective pressures of the Arabs and Jews at the time. These immigrants could not have come in if they had not been shielded by a British chevaux-de-frise. If Palestine had remained under Ottoman Turkish rule, or if it had become an independent Arab state in 1918, Jewish immigrants would never have been admitted into Palestine in large enough numbers to enable them to overwhelm the Palestinian Arabs in this Arab people's own country. The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace."
Arnold J. Toynbee - eminent world historian

BTW, all those examples RoccoR listed, were started by Zionists.

And you have yet to link me to any attacks, massacres of Arabs that preceded the attacks Rocco posted.

That's because there were none, just like I told you. The violence didn't start, until the Zionists showed up.

We wish to point out here that the Jewish population of Palestine who lived there before the War never had any trouble with their Arab neighbours. They enjoyed the same rights and privileges as their fellow Ottoman citizens, and never agitated for the Declaration of November 1917. It is the Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration ...
- Winston Churchill

Que pasa, mutha?

Your quote is useless.
The problem with you is that you are incapable of admitting you're wrong.

You need to look in the mirror on that woman.

Either way, I have proved all your allegations to be wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat your lies, they will never become true...

And you're not proving anything, just pointing to someone else's "alleged" proof.

Again, you have failed miserably at refuting the fact that the Arabs started with the massacres and murders. You say they started it, but wheres your links?
Nothing but bullshit lies from you, Tinmore and Monti
THE ARABS STARTED WITH THE VIOLENCE! BIGTIME.

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

The people of Palestine have been ruled by external sovereign authority for a thousand years.

Why should a people invaded by people from another continent agree to be ruled by the invaders?

(COMMENT)

• The Jewish people didn't invade, they immigrated.
• The Jewish immigrated to the Jewish National Home as established by the Allied Powers in 1920.
• The Jewish did not seek agreement from the Arabs.
• The Jewish People exercised their right of self-determination under the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as established by the cognizant authority (the United Nations).
• The Arab Palestinian declined to help in the rule of the Mandated Territory:
  • Declined to establish an Arab Agency.
  • Declined to participate in the Partition Planning.

The decisions made all those decades ago, were made by those that participated in process. In the "Question of Palestine" --- the People do not have government by the majority; but rather --- have government by the majority who participate. The Arab Palestinian was offered several opportunities over sever decades to participate and they declined to exercise their "inalienable rights." However the Jewish People took advantage of those rights.

You have not legitimate grievance to the outcome of government if you don't participate.

Most Respectfully,
R

• The Jewish people didn't invade, they immigrated.

No they didn't.

Yes they did. You have no idea what an invasion is.
You simply cannot admit this because it destroys your agenda.
I recommend you go debate another issue, because your grasp on this conflict is terrible.

 

[toastman]

Please indicate what has been left out.

The wars that the Palestinians started which resulted in their expulsion.

How can that be? The Jews went to Palestine from Europe, another continent. How can defending one's land be considered starting a war? Logic is not your forte', is it.

Attacking people and instigating a war has consequences. When Palestinians attack Israel, it's always self decence, but the other way around is always agression to you.
However, the Jews only started attacking Arabs in response to Arabs attacking them (I say Arabs because they were not referred to as Palestinians then)
Then 5 Arab states invaded the region and statted a huge war which resulted in the expulsion of Palestinians (some left their villages at the order of Arab leaders).
I'm not surprised that I have to explain this to you.
Stop buying your history books from the Hamas book store.

The Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Jews?

That's the 49th time you've asked that ridiculous question.

He believes that because the Jews immigrated to Mandatory Palestine, all attacks against them were legit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Please indicate what has been left out.

The wars that the Palestinians started which resulted in their expulsion.

How can that be? The Jews went to Palestine from Europe, another continent. How can defending one's land be considered starting a war? Logic is not your forte', is it.

Attacking people and instigating a war has consequences. When Palestinians attack Israel, it's always self decence, but the other way around is always agression to you.
However, the Jews only started attacking Arabs in response to Arabs attacking them (I say Arabs because they were not referred to as Palestinians then)
Then 5 Arab states invaded the region and statted a huge war which resulted in the expulsion of Palestinians (some left their villages at the order of Arab leaders).
I'm not surprised that I have to explain this to you.
Stop buying your history books from the Hamas book store.

The Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Jews?

That's the 49th time you've asked that ridiculous question.

The Zionist went to Palestine so they could defend themselves?