Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And just who is it, that you think is going to destroy Israel with war?The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.
There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.
You don't understand and it isn't "Un American", in fact the system of govt. In Israel is as American as it gets. Israel was voted for as a JEWISH State, by the 51 member states of the League of Nations (which later became the UN) as a haven and shelter for Jews who are escaping persecution, anti Semetism, and oppression.
The region was also divided into many "Islamic" states by the same governing body. While a quarter of Israel's population are Arab Muslims with equal rights as the rest of the Israelis, non of the Arab or Muslim states can boast a non Muslim minority that big. Yet ignorant morons like you keep calling Israel the "racist" nation.
I get it that there is a "rah rah" section for Israel and they would say Israeli shit tastes delicious. However, I didn't say Israel was a "racist nation". That would be an indictment of all of its citizens. I did say that the government favors Jews in terms of becoming a citizen.
But that's not what you said. You did say "...it is a fact that Israel currently requires a person to be a particular religion to be a citizen" and despite ample opportunity to admit you had lied, you simply slithered away.
No guts ... no glory.
How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.
[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
arab Israelis have the rights that come with citizenship. Those that don't want to be Israel and live by the laws of Israel have left and now live in the WB, gaza and the refugee camps...or found jobs and applied for citizenship in other countries.
Palestinians did not have to leave, they made the choice to. They choose to fight against the Israeli state instead of accepting it existence. If palestinian are treated as hostile and excluded from entering Israel, it is due to their own actions. If they object to not having equal right with Israeli, it because they choose not to be Israelis.
"Palestinians did not have to leave,"
Now there, there. Do you really expect informed people to believe the Zionist propaganda. Christian and Muslim villages had been attacked by Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang types, and villagers were being slaughtered, you really think they "did not have to leave". You are on an alternative universe.
Sweet_Caroline, montelatici, et al,
Remember that these documents were created by men based on a 19th Century understanding of what civil and religious rights meant.
(COMMENT)That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.
So, when the authors of these very early 20th Century documents say "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...." --- what did THEY really means?
Under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required.
- The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
- The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People.
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant.
- The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory.
There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights). What they did include:
But nothing else specifically was mentioned. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid.
- Rights and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, and protection of Moslem sacred shrines.
- Freedom to maintain indigenous schools for the education of its culture.
- Freedom to manage financial obligations legitimately incurred debt.
- The protection of pensions or gratuities (inheritance).
- Real Estate laws and the protection of private property.
When trying to translate what the authors intent was, one has to think like a early 20th Century author with a 19th Century education and classical outlook on humanity. But you cannot include all the advancement made in summation of the 20th Century and apply 21st Century logic to them. That would not be representative of their true intent.
Most Respectfully,
R
" nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities "
Ok genius, do you see anything that can be misinterpreted in the above? And note the word "might" rather than will. Nothing that "might" prejudice the civil rights was prohibited, and forcing the Christians and Muslims to be ruled by Jews (which was not the intent of the Mandate at all) certainly "might" prejudice the rights of the non-Jews.
How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.
[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.
Of course they were. If the had't there would not be Palestinian refugees or Palestinians penned up in Gulags. But it isn't the point, the word was "might" not "could", so putting non-Jews under the rule of Jews under the Partition was in contravention of the terms of the Mandate. It is obvious that putting non-Jews under the rule of Jews "might" prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jews. And it certainly did.
"While it is true that the intent did not explicitly require a Jewish State, it did not preclude it."
It precluded a state that "might" prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jews. In those days, the potential prejudice of the civil rights of one people over another on a religious basis was more expected than today. So, sorry, your dog won't hunt.
The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.
There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.
And just who is it, that you think is going to destroy Israel with war?The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.
There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.
World politics change, the rich, powerful nations get weaker and others take over.
This, eventually, will happen to your pimp, America.
When the American taxpayers wise up or just get fed up of you, your military power will fade and you;ll become weak.
This will lead to other countries attacking you and you'll fall.
Israel is simply a shit stain on the underwear of life.
Watch out for the washing machine.
I get it that there is a "rah rah" section for Israel and they would say Israeli shit tastes delicious. However, I didn't say Israel was a "racist nation". That would be an indictment of all of its citizens. I did say that the government favors Jews in terms of becoming a citizen.
But that's not what you said. You did say "...it is a fact that Israel currently requires a person to be a particular religion to be a citizen" and despite ample opportunity to admit you had lied, you simply slithered away.
No guts ... no glory.
That is correct. If you are not a citizen and want to "be a citizen", then being Jewish is a major determining factor. Jews are automatic citizens and "others" are given the run-around. If you think it is a good thing that a country grants automatic citizenship based on religion, that is your right. However, here in America, the true constitutionalists will never think that is a good thing. I am an American and don't see how backing up fucked up Israeli government policies is the best interest of America. I am allowed to have that opinion. I don't care for any government where religion is part of the government. Anybody who doesn't get that is probably not that big on American values.
Sweet_Caroline, montelatici, et al,
Remember that these documents were created by men based on a 19th Century understanding of what civil and religious rights meant.
(COMMENT)How could that possibly be, when it clearly states that nothing could be done that might "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
How could establishing a Jewish ruled state not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? Remember non-Jews were about 90% of the population. The Mandate had no such intention.
[/B]of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...."
That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.
So, when the authors of these very early 20th Century documents say "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...." --- what did THEY really means?
Under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required.
- The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
- The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People.
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant.
- The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory.
There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights). What they did include:
But nothing else specifically was mentioned. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid.
- Rights and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, and protection of Moslem sacred shrines.
- Freedom to maintain indigenous schools for the education of its culture.
- Freedom to manage financial obligations legitimately incurred debt.
- The protection of pensions or gratuities (inheritance).
- Real Estate laws and the protection of private property.
When trying to translate what the authors intent was, one has to think like a early 20th Century author with a 19th Century education and classical outlook on humanity. But you cannot include all the advancement made in summation of the 20th Century and apply 21st Century logic to them. That would not be representative of their true intent.
Most Respectfully,
R
- The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
arab Israelis have the rights that come with citizenship. Those that don't want to be Israel and live by the laws of Israel have left and now live in the WB, gaza and the refugee camps...or found jobs and applied for citizenship in other countries.
Palestinians did not have to leave, they made the choice to. They choose to fight against the Israeli state instead of accepting it existence. If palestinian are treated as hostile and excluded from entering Israel, it is due to their own actions. If they object to not having equal right with Israeli, it because they choose not to be Israelis.
"Palestinians did not have to leave,"
Now there, there. Do you really expect informed people to believe the Zionist propaganda. Christian and Muslim villages had been attacked by Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang types, and villagers were being slaughtered, you really think they "did not have to leave". You are on an alternative universe.
Will you believe the document submitted to the UN in regards to this, when Israel declared independence and begged the arabs to stay in peace as full Israeli citizens. This document is enshrined in INTERNATIONAL LAW and shows that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS are LYING to demonise and incite racial hatred of the Jews.
You will commit gross evil on earth, twice. You are destined to fall into great heights of arrogance.
And just who is it, that you think is going to destroy Israel with war?The pro Israel lot can bleat on all they like but they can't get past facts.
There was no Israel for thousands of years and there's only one now because of daft political moves, mass immigration and wars.
States that start with a war tend to end with a war. Sadly, that'll involve a lot of innocent people getting hurt.
World politics change, the rich, powerful nations get weaker and others take over.
This, eventually, will happen to your pimp, America.
When the American taxpayers wise up or just get fed up of you, your military power will fade and you;ll become weak.
This will lead to other countries attacking you and you'll fall.
Israel is simply a shit stain on the underwear of life.
Watch out for the washing machine.
Empires and rogue states turn up, live, murder and eventually, get stomped under the feet of the people they oppress.
Israel is no different.
Sooner or later, the American taxpayers will rebel, give Israel the finger and, as the country gets weaker, the surrounding nations will want their land back.
Happens every time; no mass murdering government ever lasts that long.
I give the place between 5 and 20 years.
A couple of years before the Berlin wall fell, very few people would have predicted it.
Same went for South Africa. It fell rapidly, with far greater ease than was expected.
Israel is dead, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that situation.
Many Jews will return to Europe, a lot to America, but where ever they go, memories of Israeli mass murder and oppression will follow.
The American right wing will probably see their chance to blame immigrant Jews for all America's problems and we'll see mass hatred.
Basically, business as usual but, without American tax payers funding that evil state, there will be no Muslim groups who care about attacking America.
Basically, all Muslim groups who engage in acts against America, do so because America funds Israel.
That is the base of many of America's problems.
Six million people, run by an evil government, cause more problems for America than the rest of the world.
(COMMENT)Sweet_Caroline, montelatici, et al,
Remember that these documents were created by men based on a 19th Century understanding of what civil and religious rights meant.
(COMMENT)That was the wording of the Mandate.
Civil and religious rights of other peoples were not prejudiced.
So, when the authors of these very early 20th Century documents say "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...." --- what did THEY really means?
Under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required.
- The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
- The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People.
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people."
- The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant.
- The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory.
There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights). What they did include:
But nothing else specifically was mentioned. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid.
- Rights and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, and protection of Moslem sacred shrines.
- Freedom to maintain indigenous schools for the education of its culture.
- Freedom to manage financial obligations legitimately incurred debt.
- The protection of pensions or gratuities (inheritance).
- Real Estate laws and the protection of private property.
When trying to translate what the authors intent was, one has to think like a early 20th Century author with a 19th Century education and classical outlook on humanity. But you cannot include all the advancement made in summation of the 20th Century and apply 21st Century logic to them. That would not be representative of their true intent.
Most Respectfully,
R
Good post.
- The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people.
None of these mentioned Israel, a Jewish state, or a country where Jews would rule over others. They all seem to contradict the notion of a Jewish state.
Empires and rogue states turn up, live, murder and eventually, get stomped under the feet of the people they oppress.
Israel is no different.
Sooner or later, the American taxpayers will rebel, give Israel the finger and, as the country gets weaker, the surrounding nations will want their land back.
Happens every time; no mass murdering government ever lasts that long.
I give the place between 5 and 20 years.
A couple of years before the Berlin wall fell, very few people would have predicted it.
Same went for South Africa. It fell rapidly, with far greater ease than was expected.
Israel is dead, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that situation.
Many Jews will return to Europe, a lot to America, but where ever they go, memories of Israeli mass murder and oppression will follow.
The American right wing will probably see their chance to blame immigrant Jews for all America's problems and we'll see mass hatred.
Basically, business as usual but, without American tax payers funding that evil state, there will be no Muslim groups who care about attacking America.
Basically, all Muslim groups who engage in acts against America, do so because America funds Israel.
That is the base of many of America's problems.
Six million people, run by an evil government, cause more problems for America than the rest of the world.
Empires and rogue states turn up, live, murder and eventually, get stomped under the feet of the people they oppress.
Israel is no different.
Sooner or later, the American taxpayers will rebel, give Israel the finger and, as the country gets weaker, the surrounding nations will want their land back.
Happens every time; no mass murdering government ever lasts that long.
I give the place between 5 and 20 years.
A couple of years before the Berlin wall fell, very few people would have predicted it.
Same went for South Africa. It fell rapidly, with far greater ease than was expected.
Israel is dead, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that situation.
Many Jews will return to Europe, a lot to America, but where ever they go, memories of Israeli mass murder and oppression will follow.
The American right wing will probably see their chance to blame immigrant Jews for all America's problems and we'll see mass hatred.
Basically, business as usual but, without American tax payers funding that evil state, there will be no Muslim groups who care about attacking America.
Basically, all Muslim groups who engage in acts against America, do so because America funds Israel.
That is the base of many of America's problems.
Six million people, run by an evil government, cause more problems for America than the rest of the world.
And in 5 to 20 years, Muslim Nazis like you will be saying that in 5 to 20 years, Israel will be destroyed.
What a ridiculous post BTW. I always knee you were full of shit, but you've taken it to a whole new level.
Why you so angry Fred? Is it because Israel's birthday is coming up? Or because your prediction that Israel will be destroyed didn't occur? Or maybe it's because you're tired of seeing Israel thrive economically?
Wait, is it because Israel is sitting atop a gold mine of natural gas?
You know what Muslims like you have in common? They always say things about Israel that are not only not true, but that their Muslim countries are guilty of.
Say it with me Freddie boy:
AM ISRAEL CHAI!
Empires and rogue states turn up, live, murder and eventually, get stomped under the feet of the people they oppress.
Israel is no different.
Sooner or later, the American taxpayers will rebel, give Israel the finger and, as the country gets weaker, the surrounding nations will want their land back.
Happens every time; no mass murdering government ever lasts that long.
I give the place between 5 and 20 years.
A couple of years before the Berlin wall fell, very few people would have predicted it.
Same went for South Africa. It fell rapidly, with far greater ease than was expected.
Israel is dead, regardless of the rights and wrongs of that situation.
Many Jews will return to Europe, a lot to America, but where ever they go, memories of Israeli mass murder and oppression will follow.
The American right wing will probably see their chance to blame immigrant Jews for all America's problems and we'll see mass hatred.
Basically, business as usual but, without American tax payers funding that evil state, there will be no Muslim groups who care about attacking America.
Basically, all Muslim groups who engage in acts against America, do so because America funds Israel.
That is the base of many of America's problems.
Six million people, run by an evil government, cause more problems for America than the rest of the world.
And in 5 to 20 years, Muslim Nazis like you will be saying that in 5 to 20 years, Israel will be destroyed.
What a ridiculous post BTW. I always knee you were full of shit, but you've taken it to a whole new level.
Why you so angry Fred? Is it because Israel's birthday is coming up? Or because your prediction that Israel will be destroyed didn't occur? Or maybe it's because you're tired of seeing Israel thrive economically?
Wait, is it because Israel is sitting atop a gold mine of natural gas?
You know what Muslims like you have in common? They always say things about Israel that are not only not true, but that their Muslim countries are guilty of.
Say it with me Freddie boy:
AM ISRAEL CHAI!
Maybe it will be the only state in history that a minority will be able to rule over a majority in an small land area under its control surrounded by a vast population (50 times or more Israel's) related culturally and religiously to the majority under its control.
On the other hand, it has never worked before, as they found out in Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, etc.
And in 5 to 20 years, Muslim Nazis like you will be saying that in 5 to 20 years, Israel will be destroyed.
What a ridiculous post BTW. I always knee you were full of shit, but you've taken it to a whole new level.
Why you so angry Fred? Is it because Israel's birthday is coming up? Or because your prediction that Israel will be destroyed didn't occur? Or maybe it's because you're tired of seeing Israel thrive economically?
Wait, is it because Israel is sitting atop a gold mine of natural gas?
You know what Muslims like you have in common? They always say things about Israel that are not only not true, but that their Muslim countries are guilty of.
Say it with me Freddie boy:
AM ISRAEL CHAI!
Maybe it will be the only state in history that a minority will be able to rule over a majority in an small land area under its control surrounded by a vast population (50 times or more Israel's) related culturally and religiously to the majority under its control.
On the other hand, it has never worked before, as they found out in Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, etc.
It is already standing at over 100 times the population of Israel, and still not a sign of any attack. Even if in hits 1000 times the muslims will not attack as they are cowards when faced with death. Just look at what hamas did during Cast lead when they evicted the women and children from the shelters so the brave mujahidin could escape injury.
