Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[MJB12741]

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

So you keep asserting. Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.

Eh, where does the Treaty Of Lausanne even mention Palestine?

 

[Eloy]

montelatici, et al,

Here again, this is what I'm talking about.

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League (contributions from multiple sources) and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

View attachment 110444
Arab Participants in the
1949 Attack and War on Israel
From Wikipedia​

Human Development Rating:
2015 Human Development Report

Arab League

• 
  Egypt
  • Ranked 108th
• 
  Jordan
  • Ranked 80th
• 
  Iraq
  • Ranked 121st
• 
  Syria
  • Ranked 134th
• 
  Lebanon
  • Ranked 67th
• 
  Saudi Arabia
  • Ranked 39th
• 
  Yemen
  • Ranked 160th
• 
  Pakistan
  • Ranked 147th
• 
  Sudan
  • Ranked 167th

Of course Israel Ranked 18th; compared to State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th. We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian (Fatah Fedayeen) insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.

While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is under occupation. Also, Israel gets billions of American taxpayers' dollars annually.

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741,

It does not.

Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.

So you keep asserting. Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.

Eh, where does the Treaty Of Lausanne even mention Palestine?

(COMMENT)

It is a 21st Century interpretation of the reading.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

See Posting #194.

montelatici, et al,

Here again, this is what I'm talking about.

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League (contributions from multiple sources) and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

View attachment 110444
Arab Participants in the
1949 Attack and War on Israel
From Wikipedia​

Human Development Rating:
2015 Human Development Report

Arab League

• 
  Egypt
  • Ranked 108th
• 
  Jordan
  • Ranked 80th
• 
  Iraq
  • Ranked 121st
• 
  Syria
  • Ranked 134th
• 
  Lebanon
  • Ranked 67th
• 
  Saudi Arabia
  • Ranked 39th
• 
  Yemen
  • Ranked 160th
• 
  Pakistan
  • Ranked 147th
• 
  Sudan
  • Ranked 167th

Of course Israel Ranked 18th; compared to State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th. We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian (Fatah Fedayeen) insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.

While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is under occupation. Also, Israel gets billions of American taxpayers' dollars annually.

(COMMENT)

There is nothing stopping the oil rich Arab Nations of the Arab League from assisting the Arab Palestinians the same way to the same degree --- IS THERE?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

They were not rich at the time, ARAMCO, BAPCO etc. were wholly U.S. owned at the time and until 1980 the Saudis still were only part owners.

Plus, since about 72% of the aid provided to the Palestinians ends up helping Israel, there is little incentive for Arab states to increase their contributions.



".............at least 72% of international aid ends up in the Israeli economy."

http://www.aidwatch.ps/sites/defaul...alAidToPalestiniansFeedsTheIsraeliEconomy.pdf

 

[MJB12741]

montelatici, et al,

Here again, this is what I'm talking about.

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League (contributions from multiple sources) and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

View attachment 110444
Arab Participants in the
1949 Attack and War on Israel
From Wikipedia​

Human Development Rating:
2015 Human Development Report

Arab League

• 
  Egypt
  • Ranked 108th
• 
  Jordan
  • Ranked 80th
• 
  Iraq
  • Ranked 121st
• 
  Syria
  • Ranked 134th
• 
  Lebanon
  • Ranked 67th
• 
  Saudi Arabia
  • Ranked 39th
• 
  Yemen
  • Ranked 160th
• 
  Pakistan
  • Ranked 147th
• 
  Sudan
  • Ranked 167th

Of course Israel Ranked 18th; compared to State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th. We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian (Fatah Fedayeen) insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.

While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.

Most Respectfully,
R

Quite an accomplishment for Israel. Especially considering what Israel has for neighbors to deal with.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.

 

[MJB12741]

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.

I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.

You most certainly have not. You have claimed it. But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.

I did to. You never responded to that post.

These statements that Israel "has no land" and that "Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne" are absolutely ridiculous. Tinmore could perhaps teach a course in philosophy, but he has no business posting on a Board about the real situation in the Middle East.

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.

I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.

It is right there with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan.

 

[MJB12741]

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.

I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.

It is right there with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan.

Link please. Can't wait to see mention of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is very true.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.

(COMMENT)

But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk. For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law. And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.

What Is a Philistine?
George Santayana
This is an excerpt from an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.​

If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical. Even Prussian is not necessarily a term of abuse; any one except a Frenchman might use it simply to denote a fact of civil allegiance, and to the ears of a corporal or a school-master it might even have a glorious sound. And so it might be with the word Philistine, were it not as yet too modern and metaphorical to be used by those to whom it applies, who, being of a somewhat conservative and plebian turn of mind, prefer to call themselves “smart” fellows and “bright” girls. But if any of them should do me the honor to read my definition of the ancient and populous Philistine nation, they may henceforth point with pride (as they are apt to do) to its glories as to then-own, and be as happy in being Philistines as they are now in being Americans. Who knows if even you, dear Reader, inhabitant of Cambridge or Boston as you are, may not recognize yourself in my description? Be not hasty, therefore, in condemning the Philistine: haply he is all that you most admire and respect. But even if you are sure that the Philistine is horrid and vulgar, I pray you to be patient with him for a while. I will try to be so myself, for I too secretly dislike the Philistine; but we must forget our tastes for a time, while, happy in the consciousness of our silent sympathy, we proceed to describe the anatomy of the creature as impartially and scientifically as we can.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is very true.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.

(COMMENT)

But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk. For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law. And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.

What Is a Philistine?
George Santayana
This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.​

If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc. You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is very true.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.

(COMMENT)

But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk. For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law. And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.

What Is a Philistine?
George Santayana
This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.​

If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc. You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This does not change a thing.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is very true.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form (there is no such place) you are right (all things being equal). In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter (state sovereignty) cannot be done at the expense of the former (individual sovereignty). And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.

Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.

(COMMENT)

But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk. For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law. And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.

What Is a Philistine?
George Santayana
This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.​

If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc. You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.

(COMMENT)

It is very possible to physically pretend that you are doing something partriotic, and it is physcially possible to conduct Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence under the mask and Tactical Desert Shemagh Arab Keffiyeh (or whatever HAMAS calls it), pretending to be something they are not. Having said that, for every action they take, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of Israeli Law under the Provisions of Basic Law or under the provisions of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Arab Palestinian Government should also be held accountable for every bit of material support and for each laudatory remarks the make in favor of the irrational Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).


For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

There is a difference between the Arab Palestinians the incites violence, praises jihadist and searches for excuses to kill more.

You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).

For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past

(COMMENT)

Throughout history, there have been good people who have done bad things. There Have been bad people that have done bad thing. And there have been bad people that have done good things. But it has been a very rare point in history were an entire population like the Arab Palestinian that can culturally and generationally describe as morally despicable; inclined to do evil given the choice between supporting good and supporting evil.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

How are the Palestinians any different than the IRA, the ANC, the FLN, the Mau Mau, ZANU, etc?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

There is a difference between the Arab Palestinians the incites violence, praises jihadist and searches for excuses to kill more.

You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).

For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past

(COMMENT)

Throughout history, there have been good people who have done bad things. There Have been bad people that have done bad thing. And there have been bad people that have done good things. But it has been a very rare point in history were an entire population like the Arab Palestinian that can culturally and generationally describe as morally despicable; inclined to do evil given the choice between supporting good and supporting evil.

Most Respectfully,
R

Were you always full of crap or did you learn that while working for the government?

 

[Shusha]

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.

You just don't like the answer. Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no? How do you know? What made them States?

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time. Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal. Its your claim.