Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,
​

So how does this show that the arab league didnt invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years

WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring

You're a lying sack of shit.

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring

You're a lying sack of shit.

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

 

[Hollie]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

You're a lying sack of shit.

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

"They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack."™

Funny. Good one.

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

"They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack."™

Funny. Good one.

Indeed, that is what history says.

 

[Shusha]

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​

Yep. In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc. We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.

Settler colonialism is not new.

Clearly. It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs. Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places. The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. Certainly no one talks about while reversing the indigenous and the colonizers, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.

Respectfully,
a filthy Jew

 

[Hollie]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

"They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack."™

Funny. Good one.

Indeed, that is what history says.

Indeed, that has become another of the slogans you cut and paste into various threads after another of the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers wrote it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​

Yep. In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc. We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.

Settler colonialism is not new.

Clearly. It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs. Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places. The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. Certainly no one talks about while reversing the indigenous and the colonizers, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.

Respectfully,
a filthy Jew

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just an attempt to obscure the real intention of the fully pre-planned act of aggression.

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League confederates departed the frontier of their countries and entered territory formerly under the Mandate and territory declared sovereign and independence.

While the Arab League Armies say they were there to "defend" Palestinian Arabs, the fact is that two of the Arab coalition capture territory for themselves. The Jordanians took the West Bank and the Egyptians took the Gaza Strip. No matter what excuse you come-up with, the end-state evidence is conclusive. The Arab League wanted to carve-up the former territory under mandate; eliminating Israel in the process of expanding there territory. However, Lebanon and Syria failed in their advance, and had a net lost as a result of pursuit. The Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) essentially was agreed upon as the Armistice Line (with minor adjustments).

It does not matter if the Arab League recognizes the Jewish State of Israel. Nothing impairs the inherent right of the Jewish State of Israel to self-defense if an armed attack by the Arab League occurs as it did. The initiation to a war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law. The organized effort on the part of the anti-Semitic Arab League to present themselves and the defenseless Hostile Arab Palestinians as victims needing protection from the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

You're a lying sack of shit.

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

They entered the mandate of palestine with the intention of wiping out palestinians and stealing palestinian lands. Isnt that correct, and they made this very clear in the lead up to the invasion. The arab armies had no right to invade the mandate of palestine, and as soon as Israel declared independence the UN should have issued a declaration of war against the arab league unless they turned tail and went home.
Remember the 300,000 figure was plucked out of thin air and included the population of Jordan because the reality was less than 50,000 were actually evicted, and they were all armed terrorists hiding in villages after the Jews had beaten the arab league forces back. The rest were willing evacuee's who left of their own free will when the arab league asked them to as they could not guarantee their safety.

Nothing stopping you from bringing up Zionists, Jews, Germans and the nazi's, you just need to make sure they are used in the correct context and not as you usually use them

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

"They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack."™

Funny. Good one.

Indeed, that is what history says.

Only islamonazi propaganda versions.

The reality is this






Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League


• “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Palestine and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”2

• “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine.”3

• “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”4

• “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”5

• “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”6

• “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”7

 

[Phoenall]

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​

Yep. In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc. We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.

Settler colonialism is not new.

Clearly. It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs. Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places. The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. Certainly no one talks about while reversing the indigenous and the colonizers, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.

Respectfully,
a filthy Jew

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.

WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day. The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc

 

[Shusha]

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.

You are on very shaky ground here both morally and legally.

There is no moral high ground to saying the laws changed at the exact moment the Jewish people did something. In fact, that rather supports my point that laws are changed and redefined when the Jewish people are involved.

Your legal ground is not better. There is no law which prohibits voluntary migration of people of an ethnic group into a territory. And the Jewish people, obviously, are returnees, not colonist foreigners.

But, sigh, we've been over this before, no need to re-hash it here. I've made my point.

Sincerely,
the filthy Jew

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

They entered the mandate of palestine with the intention of wiping out palestinians and stealing palestinian lands. Isnt that correct, and they made this very clear in the lead up to the invasion. The arab armies had no right to invade the mandate of palestine, and as soon as Israel declared independence the UN should have issued a declaration of war against the arab league unless they turned tail and went home.
Remember the 300,000 figure was plucked out of thin air and included the population of Jordan because the reality was less than 50,000 were actually evicted, and they were all armed terrorists hiding in villages after the Jews had beaten the arab league forces back. The rest were willing evacuee's who left of their own free will when the arab league asked them to as they could not guarantee their safety.

Nothing stopping you from bringing up Zionists, Jews, Germans and the nazi's, you just need to make sure they are used in the correct context and not as you usually use them

Do you have links to that line of crap?

I didn't think so.

 

[theliq]

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere. Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere. Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation. It is not the political term with consequence. The term you really need to tack down is:

Article 1 Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​

You're a lying sack of shit.

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it

Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

Yes. Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.

(COMMENT)

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other entity that holds to a persuasion. The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today. It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple. Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.

• Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
• "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.
​

In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​

You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."

Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites..... the problem is for them no matter how they try to legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian people......to take the Palestinians Land.

That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.

Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE

Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.

As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve

 

[theliq]

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.

You are on very shaky ground here both morally and legally.

There is no moral high ground to saying the laws changed at the exact moment the Jewish people did something. In fact, that rather supports my point that laws are changed and redefined when the Jewish people are involved.

Your legal ground is not better. There is no law which prohibits voluntary migration of people of an ethnic group into a territory. And the Jewish people, obviously, are returnees, not colonist foreigners.

But, sigh, we've been over this before, no need to re-hash it here. I've made my point.

Sincerely,
the filthy Jew

at last,a signature of honesty..BUT Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews are Great People.....THE REAL ONES

 

[theliq]

I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​

Yep. In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc. We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.

Settler colonialism is not new.

Clearly. It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs. Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places. The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people. Certainly no one talks about while reversing the indigenous and the colonizers, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.

Respectfully,
a filthy Jew

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.

CIVILIZED being the operative word here......nice post Tinnie,steve

 

[theliq]

WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment

You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.

ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT

Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.

More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
What an ass you are.
You're probably Muslim.

You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.

Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.

Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You

Here you go




Zionism | nationalistic movement

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

I note the word PALESTINE............the REST OF THE POST IS UNMITIGATED ZIONIST TERRORIST<>BULLSHIT

 

[Shusha]

at last,a signature of honesty..BUT Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews are Great People.....THE REAL ONES

Steve, as you have repeatedly informed me -- you and I AGREE. We both believe that there should be two States for two peoples -- one (more) for the Arab Palestinian people -- Palestine -- and one for the Jewish people -- Israel. Since we believe in the same thing we are either both Zionists or neither Zionists.

If you believe that the Jewish people should have their own self-determination then you are, in fact, a Zionist.

 

[theliq]

Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists. The British were well aware of this. You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"

"The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

So how does this show that the arab league didnt invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.



And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years

WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring

Go away you pompous cretin, while you rot your brain with the hate sites you will never be my equal. I am your superior in every way and dont forget it. I have seen a video of you, and how you blubbered like a baby when proven to be a coward and a liar.

Should I POST IT ON HERE FOR ALL TO SEE ?

POST IT...unlike you,I am open,honest and have nothing to hide............................Do you really think I could be threatened,intimidated or cowerd by a TWO BIT PEICE OF ZIONIST SHITHEAD LIKE YOU...... You are merely exposing your cowardly RUNTness for all to see.............t

 

[theliq]

at last,a signature of honesty..BUT Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews are Great People.....THE REAL ONES

Steve, as you have repeatedly informed me -- you and I AGREE. We both believe that there should be two States for two peoples -- one (more) for the Arab Palestinian people -- Palestine -- and one for the Jewish people -- Israel. Since we believe in the same thing we are either both Zionists or neither Zionists.

If you believe that the Jewish people should have their own self-determination then you are, in fact, a Zionist.

I find your Logic inane,because I am pragmatic over this schism,that somehow makes me a Zionist!!!!!!for fuck sake Shusha what is wrong with you???