Should Israel have been created?

[toastman]

I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....

Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong

It has nothing to do with "my" homework.

You made a claim, back it up!

YOu made a claim about me as well, back it up !

 

[Billo_Really]

YOu made a claim about me as well, back it up !

I didn't make a claim!

I asked you to provide the evidence to back up the one you made about Tinny.

 

[MHunterB]

Please don't be so obtuse. There is nothing making organizing 'Nakba Day' observances *illegal* - the law doesn't prohibit such events. It doesn't even revoke funding for NGO's which organize such events.

ALL it does is give the appropriate government office the OPTION of reducing funding to such groups. That's akin at worst to removing the tax-exempt status of 'churches' which get too involved in specific politics (ie, directing voting from the pulpit, as opposed to simply saying 'Vote').

If you want to call it 'dissent' for a group to set up with, I don't know - coffins and blood and 'skeleton masks' to UN-celebrate on the Fourth, fine. It's perfectly legal. It's also in bad taste, to say the least, and why should a government fund groups which regard that government's ESTABLISHMENT as a CATASTROPHE?

The "law" is directed at a certain segment of the population that is non-jewish and that is discrimination. The "law" is being used as a club against human rights groups in Israel. Citizenship is being denied to any non-jews who refuse to acknowledge Israel as a "jewish state". This "law" and others like it, are making it illegal to protest the government of Israel. It basically says, "You either goose-step in the direction of current party politics, or face retribution."

Would you be so enthusiastic about tax money paying for a group flying the Stars 'n' Bars and making a show of mourning on the 9th of April?

What happened on April 9th?[/QUOTE]

Last year, I finished up doing our taxes. BUT in 1865, there was something important going on that day at the Appomattox Cty Courthouse....... (silly me - I thought 'mourning' and 'Stars' 'n' Bars together would be enough info....)

Oh, and I think your 'argument' is purely emotional and has no basis in fact or reality. NOTHING is being made 'illegal' or 'forbidden': it is simply that the government now has the OPTION to REDUCE FUNDING for NGO's which choose to so indulge.

As long as you continue to mis-represent the law as YOU presented it, I choose to decline further discussion with you on the topic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm not doing your homework for you loiney. Go read the last few pages....

Prove to me that he proved Rocco wrong

If you think I am wrong, perhaps you should be the one justifying your position.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you think I am wrong, perhaps you should be the one justifying your position.

Exactly!

He claimed you haven't disproven anything RoccoR said.

Quote: Originally Posted by toastman
Because you can't disprove anything Rocco said

I asked for his citations to back that claim up and until he does, that is nothing but a baseless accusation.

 

[toastman]

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

 

[Billo_Really]

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

What the hell do you call this?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?

 

[toastman]

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

 

[Billo_Really]

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

He asked what determines self-determination, Tinny provided the answer.

That one was not about agreement.

You get 1/2 point for at least trying to back up your claim.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

He has been ducking self determination. Basically he is trying to justify the denial of Palestinian self determination.

 

[toastman]

Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

He has been ducking self determination. Basically he is trying to justify the denial of Palestinian self determination.

Proof ?

 

[Hossfly]

Name one or two.

It appears that Rocco has the real scoop and you have "Arab facts" from your employer. Don't worry, Tinnie, by now I think the readers realize that you will never accept a country called Israel even though there is such a country.

Check!

Really, like what?

Is it our fault, Tinnie, that you are adverse to the truth in Rocco's posts? I think any reasonable viewer can ascertain that Rocco has studied up on this issue from legitimate sources (it certainly seems like it knows more than all of us). However, look at you (a true spokesman for Hamas). You keep on babbling that Israel is not a country. In your mind you think your fellow "Palestinian" Arabs own all the land.

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy; et al,

I do remember this. And I believe I responded in Post #223

...

Lets start with post #211...

YOu quotes a post from Rocco, but didn't disprove what he said even though he used indisputable evidence

What the hell do you call this?

This is not an image of text from the UN Charter, but comes from the "Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law." [http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142 the Diakonia web-site is a Swedish NGO for international development cooperation, not a sanction UN site or any subdivision thereto.]

This is the text from the Charter. The Charter uses the phrase "self-determination" twice in the entire Charter (all 19 Chapters).

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

----------- AND ------------​

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IX: International Economic and Social Co-operation
​

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

(COMMENT)

The Swedish NGO IHL (Diakonia) does have lawyers on staff. The express there opinions. But don't mistake them for citing an official position. They weave the law just like a carpet to fit their agenda.

It is very difficult to discuss this topic in a balanced and unbiased way. Even I, as hard as I may try to avoid it, show some signs of bias and pre-registered agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have never stated that the Palestinians should, have been or are denied the right of self-determination.

Roccoi asked a question. I answered it and included a quote with a link.

What part of my post was incorrect?

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

He has been ducking self determination. Basically he is trying to justify the denial of Palestinian self determination.

(COMMENT)

What I have said, is that the Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination, and declined to establish a state.

I've also said that the right of self-determination does not extend to the conduct of offensive campaigns, terrorism, and insurrection against an Occupation Force that fought against the Palestinians supported by the various Arab Armies. That the Palestinians do not have the right to conduct any terrorist act - nor - do they have any justification under any circumstance A/RES/67/99.

I've also said that the Palestinians have not attempted to achieve regional co-operation in solving territorial problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character; and have not promoted and encouraged respect for human rights towards the Israeli or extended peaceful efforts in the prosperity of the region.

But do I believe that the Palestinian has the right to cause regional havoc, conduct regional and international terrorist attacks, to promote wars, and further a general campaign of violence --- no under any circumstance. And there is absolutely no justification that can be put forth that can demonstrate some legal basis for that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have never stated that the Palestinians should, have been or are denied the right of self-determination.

Do you agree with what he posted concerning self determination and such ?

He has been ducking self determination. Basically he is trying to justify the denial of Palestinian self determination.

(COMMENT)

What I have said, is that the Palestinians have exercised their right of self-determination, and declined to establish a state.

That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners. It is true that it was their right to reject that offer as any other people in the world would do.

I've also said that the right of self-determination does not extend to the conduct of offensive campaigns, terrorism, and insurrection against an Occupation Force that fought against the Palestinians supported by the various Arab Armies. That the Palestinians do not have the right to conduct any terrorist act - nor - do they have any justification under any circumstance A/RES/67/99.

I've also said that the Palestinians have not attempted to achieve regional co-operation in solving territorial problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character; and have not promoted and encouraged respect for human rights towards the Israeli or extended peaceful efforts in the prosperity of the region.

But do I believe that the Palestinian has the right to cause regional havoc, conduct regional and international terrorist attacks, to promote wars, and further a general campaign of violence --- no under any circumstance. And there is absolutely no justification that can be put forth that can demonstrate some legal basis for that.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from the Zionist attacks. Remember it was not the Palestinians who went to Europe to attack the Zionists.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Tinnies description of the fact that jews were subjected to
genocide in palestine at the hands of both christians
and muslims----and the fact that they were subjected to
episodes of genocides in lands dominated by muslims in
the middle east and in by christians in europe---- and the
fact that when the OTTOMANS relaxed laws which restricted
land ownership by jews in palestine that jews began
to migrate BACK to palestine and buy land there as
AN ATTACK BY EUROPEANS ON 'palestinians'

I am not surprised The real issue here is the loss of
prerequisite which no people relinquishes happily.

When the blacks of the south were freed from slavery --
--tinsy types founded the Ku Klux Klan.

When jews in palestine were granted the right to buy land---
and jews from muslim dominated countries began migrating
out of those lands along with european jews
TO PALESTINE------the concept of
UPPITY JEWS grew rancorous in the tinsy type mind
and has remained so since------relieved only by those
fond memories in the tinsy world of infant throat slitting
pogroms based on the same justifications that tinsy
type KLANNERS lynched 12 year old black kids

You are not alone, tinsy----there are still people in
the NORTHERN states of the USA who believe
they were "invaded" by blacks from the south

I grew up in a town full of people like you----it was
economic reasons that broke down its "restricted"
status that prior to about 1950 kept both the
blacks and the jews from "INVADING"

 

[docmauser1]

That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners.

In memorable words of Winnie Churchill "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.". Let's say, arabs foreigners decided to grab it all by fighting it out and got their asses stomped in the process. Since then palistanians exceled in one thing and one thing only - bitching and lies.

 

[irosie91]

That is not true. {Israeli lie) They did not decline to establish a state. They declined the "offer" of giving half of their country to foreigners.

In memorable words of Winnie Churchill "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.". Let's say, arabs foreigners decided to grab it all by fighting it out and got their asses stomped in the process. Since then palistanians exceled in one thing and one thing only - bitching and lies.

Doc have some compassion for tinsy----he is very TRUTHFULLY expressing
the ummah POV----the problem is a matter of POETIC LICENSE He does not
want to say-----al muslimeen-----refused to accept kaffirin khalbin in dar al islam
(well---I tried, dont argue the grammar or vocabulary with me----but I am
sure you get my drift) now--there were some jews they could accept----
generally those who they believed that could manage to shit and fart upon---
The situation is nothing new-----the Ku Klux Klan did not want to kill
ALL BLACKS-----just the ones that were not slaves

 

[Billo_Really]

loinboy; et al,

I do remember this. And I believe I responded in Post #223

...

What the hell do you call this?

This is not an image of text from the UN Charter, but comes from the "Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law." [The right to self-determination - IHL the Diakonia web-site is a Swedish NGO for international development cooperation, not a sanction UN site or any subdivision thereto.]

This is the text from the Charter. The Charter uses the phrase "self-determination" twice in the entire Charter (all 19 Chapters).

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

----------- AND ------------​

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IX: International Economic and Social Co-operation
​

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

(COMMENT)

The Swedish NGO IHL (Diakonia) does have lawyers on staff. The express there opinions. But don't mistake them for citing an official position. They weave the law just like a carpet to fit their agenda.

It is very difficult to discuss this topic in a balanced and unbiased way. Even I, as hard as I may try to avoid it, show some signs of bias and pre-registered agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.