USAF 2023
Gold Member
- Feb 22, 2012
- 9,576
- 2,813
- 160
Yes, using a expletive talking about President Trump. Wouldn’t expect anything else from a Muslim
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.
It sure didnt take long for the new darlings of the radical left to announce their agenda.
Rashida Tlaib's New Office Map: Israel Renamed 'Palestine' | Breitbart
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was joined by political activist Linda Sarsour during her swearing-in ceremony on as a congresswoman on Thursday in Washington, DC. On the same day, a map in her new congressional office was photographed with an attached sticky note identifying Israel as “Palestine.”
It's no surprise that the only apparent agenda of the Arab-Moslem haters is to join forces to press their Jew hating pathology.
When did they ever mention Jews?It sure didnt take long for the new darlings of the radical left to announce their agenda.
Rashida Tlaib's New Office Map: Israel Renamed 'Palestine' | Breitbart
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was joined by political activist Linda Sarsour during her swearing-in ceremony on as a congresswoman on Thursday in Washington, DC. On the same day, a map in her new congressional office was photographed with an attached sticky note identifying Israel as “Palestine.”
It's no surprise that the only apparent agenda of the Arab-Moslem haters is to join forces to press their Jew hating pathology.
So much for “ International Law” and the “ Two State Solution “. Notice how quiet Tinmore suddenly is??
No. It doesn’t. Clearly the people living there did not agree with the right of anyone to establish boundaries. Especially boundaries that were based upon biblical texts.RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ding, et al,
These are related questions of the same family tree.
(COMMENT)The international decision-making processes is responsible for the bad fruit. What basis did it have for granting Israel any land?Israel's claim to the land is based upon a fairy tale.
After the cessation of hostilities of the Great War (the guns come to a halt gradually) and political remnants began to solidify out of the four Great Empires that collapsed and fell [Imperial German (Kaiser Wilhelm II), Imperial Russian (Tsar Nicholas II), Ottoman Empire,(Sultan Abdulmejid II, Caliph), & Austro-Hungarian (Karl Franz Joseph)], the Allied Powers presented the Treaty of Sevres to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. The treaty was accepted and signed by:
※ Senator and General HAADI Pasha;
※ Senator RIZA TEVFIK Bey;
※ Minister RECHAD HALISS Bey, Special Envoy and Ambassador of Turkey at Berne;
However, the Treaty was rejected by Field Marshal Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and at the conclusion of the Turkish War of Independence, Field Marshal Atatürk, founded the new Republic. The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified by the Turkish Senate (ie President Atatürk), and a new Treaty (the Treaty of Lausanne) was concocted.
The applicable paragraph in the Treaty of Sevres:
• SECTION XIII. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. ARTICLE 132 •
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.
This essentially replaces the Armistice of Mudros, which was considered the Surrender of the Ottoman Empire and the conclusion of that theater of the Great War.
• Article XVI - Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey, October 30, 1918 •
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.
After the Armistice went into effect, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) took responsibility and relinquished it on July 1920 to the Civil Administration which would become the authority, under which the Mandate for Palestine would be assigned.
Upon establishment of the new Republic, President Atatürk, accepted the negotiated terms of the Treaty. The applicable paragraph in the Treaty of Lausanne:
• SECTION I - TERRITORIAL CLAUSES - ARTICLE 16 •
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
While the wording is different, the effect was essentially the same. The "rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories" were relinquished to the Allied Powers. This is the "basis did it have for granting Israel any land." The sovereign over the former territory of the Ottoman Empire renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers by Treaty (one sovereign to a collective of sovereigns).
I hope this answered your questions
Most Respectfully,
R
I want to argue the basis for the boundaries and the claim that Israel is entitled to that land based upon fairytales.Israel's claim to the land is based upon a fairy tale.
Israel's claim is based on the same claim of self-determination that the Arab Palestinian claim is. (Though the Jewish claim is the stronger claim). Did you want to argue against the principle of self-determination?
No. I want to argue the basis of the boundaries.The international decision-making processes is responsible for the bad fruit. What basis did it have for granting Israel any land?
Self-determination of a peoples with a long history on that land. Again, did you want to argue against that principle?
I want to argue the basis for the boundaries and the claim that Israel is entitled to that land based upon fairytales.Israel's claim to the land is based upon a fairy tale.
Israel's claim is based on the same claim of self-determination that the Arab Palestinian claim is. (Though the Jewish claim is the stronger claim). Did you want to argue against the principle of self-determination?
You people may not believe that the establishment of the nation of Israel after WWII was based upon biblical texts, but I can assure you that the powers who granted Israel that land did.
So which is it? Are those boundaries a fairytale or not?
No. I want to argue the basis of the boundaries.The international decision-making processes is responsible for the bad fruit. What basis did it have for granting Israel any land?
Self-determination of a peoples with a long history on that land. Again, did you want to argue against that principle?
They were not the only people with a long history of occupying those lands.
Do you want to argue against those people’s self determination?