The infidel cuckoo in a gentile nest

[Beelzebub]

As for the UN? We should have said goodbye long ago. The UN is stripping nation after nation of their sovereignty and using the IMF, NATO and the World Bank to do it with. They were a failure under League of Nations and they are a worse failure today under United Nations title. The name change did nothing for them. They must go. - Jeri

Interesting.

With the end of the UN, I think we can see the only legal basis for Israel existing being swept away too, as it was with a UNSC decree that Israel was made a legal entity.

Or were you hoping to keep that fig leaf of cover?

 

[Auldhippy]

Try those that are prepared to abide by the UN resolutions and Oslo accords while following the Geneva conventions in regards to denouncing all violence, terrorism and belligerence towards the state of Israel. that is all it will take to see an end to the fighting that has been raging since 1917 when the arab muslims decided that they wanted it all

Ha ha ha, I suggest you make yourself aware of the likud terrorist commissioned Clean Break Strategy. You have some nerve, Israel has 69 breaches of UNSC resolutions, completely ignore the Geneva Conventions and have actively destroyed the Oslo Accords!



The leaked video in which Netanyahu "explains" how he fooled everyone (especially the silly Americans) over the Oslo Accords.

Those 67 breaches were false as they are ISLAMONAZI BLOOD LIBELS, a proven fact that the Islamic controlled UNSC brought the resolutions because of the ongoing ANTI SEMITISM and Jew hatred. Why do you think that they are vetoed once they get to the UNGC.

Show were the Israelis have ignored the Geneva conventions then, with unbiased links to PROVEN breaches of the Geneva conventions that have resulted in action by the Hague. They did not do a very good job of destroying the Oslo accords as the P.A tried to use them only this month to force Israel into taking steps to provide for the Palestinians.

Shows just how good a negotiator he is and how poor the P.A. are at negotiating. Not many people could do that and I would like him to negotiate for me. Another missed chance of a missed chance by the Palestinians, and more egg on their face.


Now about you being a Sot and unbiased care to explain your use of ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA and ANTI SEMITIC WEB SITES to try and enhance your case

You really work hard at being stupid. The 69 (not 67) breeches do not count the 30 odd vetoes made on Israel's behalf by the US. No one vetoes on behalf of Palestine and no islamic nation has the veto nor can the UNGC veto anything by the UNSC. To describe the UNSC as anti semetic is folly of infinite proportions, islamic nations are barely represented amongst the non permanent members of the UNSC.

I'll make the foolish attempt to convince you that the High Court of Justice in Israel is not anti semetic:

the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[8]


Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Geneva Conventions 4th Protocol forbid the transfer of populatiions into territories occupied in war. All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal, if you are a US citizen this is the position of your government too. Indeed it is the position of every government on the planet except Israel. No government considers the settlements legal!

 

[Hossfly]

It's a refreshing feeling to see the Jew-haters all frustrated and squirming because Israel isn't being punished for imaginary crimes. So much woulda, coulda, shoulda and if.

 

[Beelzebub]

Israel is seldom punished for even REAL crimes.

But 'frustrated'?

No. Just keep right on to the end of the road.

 

[westwall]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

 

[Beelzebub]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

I completely agree with your first point. Jews have been there for millennium.

But the European invaders could have as well been Christians, Buddhists, athiests or agnostics.
They were opposed because they were European invaders. Not because they were Jewish.

 

[montelatici]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

So what. There was not a time when Hindus were not present in the Middle East, does that mean they can settle somewhere in the Middle East expel the inhabitants and it a Hindu State? That's what indoctrination, brainwashing and talking points does to the useful idiots.

 

[Auldhippy]

& the Jews who were present were not and still are not Zionist in that they consider sovereignty of Israel forbidden before the arrival of their Messiah.

 

[José]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

Just like the semitic people who inhabited Palestine 2000 years ago was invaded and eventually dispersed by the roman invaders, Mexico was also victim of a massive landgrab perpetrated first by american settlers and then by the United States itself.

There has not been a time when hispanics were not present in the southwest of the United States.

Does this give Jews and Mexicans the right to claim that territory again?

No, because both peoples lost the will to fight for their land and spent, (less than) 200 and 2000 years, respectivelly without actively trying to regain control over it.

If anything Mexico's "claim" over the american southwest is much "stronger" than the jewish claim over Palestine.

First:

The injustice commited against Mexico is much more recent. Do the math:

1836 - 2014

The landgrab is not even 200 years old.

But it doesn't matter... if you spend even 50 years without actively trying to reconquest your lost land and grudgingly accept the loss as a de facto situation you lose any valid claim over it.

Mexico didn't lose its northern provinces because Mexican authorities were strongarmed into signing a piece of paper created to "legitimise" the land theft known as Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty under extreme duress imposed by the american military occupation.

Mexico lost them because the mexican people lost the will to fight for them.

The exact same reason why ancient Jews lost their country.

Second:

The hispanic people who inhabit Mexico and Texas, California, New Mexico, etc... are still genetically the same people who inhabited those territories at the time of the american landgrab.

European Jews, the founders of Israel, on the other hand, are Russians, Ukrainians and Poles pathetically pretending to be the direct descendents of the ancient semitic people who inhabited that part of the Middle East.

They have nothing but the most dilluted, infinitesimal semitic ancestry that many european gentiles also share.

The only thing they have in common with that semitic people is the religion and the culture they adopted which gives them no right to settle in the ME.

 

[José]

So, all things considered, Mexico's claim over the SW is much "stronger" and given the fact that even so they STILL have NO RIGHT to that part of the United States I'll leave to your imagination to figure out how utterly insane, absurd the askenazim claim over Palestine really is.

 

[montelatici]

You are absolutely right José, but the people here will say "no way".

 

[Phoenall]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

I completely agree with your first point. Jews have been there for millennium.

But the European invaders could have as well been Christians, Buddhists, athiests or agnostics.
They were opposed because they were European invaders. Not because they were Jewish.

They were Jews returning to their homeland after being invited by the lands LEGAL OWNERS. Understand that and you see that it was the arab muslims that were in the wrong and in breach of the law. It was not arab muslim land that the invited migrants were taking but LoN land they had been given. The only reason they opposed the move was because they wanted the world for themselves so decided to use violence and mass murder to get it. It was all down to their religious commands telling them to "KILL THE JEWS"

 

[Phoenall]

By invading?

There has not been a time when Jews were not present in the ME. Your assertion is flawed.

So what. There was not a time when Hindus were not present in the Middle East, does that mean they can settle somewhere in the Middle East expel the inhabitants and it a Hindu State? That's what indoctrination, brainwashing and talking points does to the useful idiots.

TRy this for size and see if you can understand reality. The land was never arab muslim and they did not own it. The legal owners under INTERNATIONAL LAW were the LoN and they could dispose of the land anyway they saw fit. They allocated 95% of the land to go to arab muslims, held in trust by the mandate until such a time as they showed the ability to exist without support. The remaining 5% of Palestine was given to the Jews of the world as their RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME . The land owners invited them to migrate and take up the offer of the land. The arab muslims were agitated by the BLOOD LIBELS spread by the grand mufti husseini and they attacked the Jews killing many in their psychopathic blood frenzy. The mandate power tried to stop all Jewish migration to the land, which was outside their remit, while turning a blind eye to illegal arab muslim migration. The land was not arab muslim so the European Jews were not stealing it from the muslims but taking up the offer of the legal land owners to migrate and settle. It would be no different to you inviting someone to come and live on your property as long as they had the relevant visas to do so.

SO FORGET ABOUT PALESTINE BEING ARAB MUSLIM AS THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, IT WAS LON LAND UNDER TREATY AND MANDATE TO BE DISPOSED OF AS THE LON SAW FIT.

 

[Phoenall]

& the Jews who were present were not and still are not Zionist in that they consider sovereignty of Israel forbidden before the arrival of their Messiah.

NO as many of them came from Europe and America with the other migrants, even then they made up a very small number of the total Jews in the M.E. with the majority being Orthodox and not extremist .


Why do you LIE when the evidence says you are wrong

 

[Phoenall]

So, all things considered, Mexico's claim over the SW is much "stronger" and given the fact that even so they STILL have NO RIGHT to that part of the United States I'll leave to your imagination to figure out how utterly insane, absurd the askenazim claim over Palestine really is.

It is founded on INTERNATIONAL LAW that has not be repealed. The legal land owners gave the Jews of the world the land on which to resurrect the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. The arab muslims had no LEGAL claim to the land under INTERNATIONAL LAW, but the Jews of the world did through gifts from the LEGAL OWNERS.


So you work out how ILLEGAL, INSANE and ABSURD the arab muslims claim to the land is

 

[Phoenall]

You are absolutely right José, but the people here will say "no way".

Please explain how the arab muslims had a legal right to the land when they had not held title for over 1,000 years. Then explain why they should be allowed to steal land from its rightful owners that had been allocated to them under INTERNATIONAL LAW of the time.

Because you are so brainwashed by ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA you ignore the facts and reality of the situation.

 

[Auldhippy]

Really?

1)They were the indigenous residents of Palestine for millenium (when Jews, who shunned soveriegnty over the land, numbered barely 3%). That it was not an autonomous state is irrelevant, you have heard of induividual property rights haven't you?

2) They were "promised" autonomy by Col MacMahon in 1916 in return for fighting Ottoman power and it was Palestinian beduin that fought with Lawrence to close the Ottoman trade routes to the Red Sea. They also fought the Ottomans in the 1850s as a Palestinian nationalist movement (failed).

3) The Sykes Picot Agreement whereby French & British carved up spheres of influence intent was autonomy for indigenous Arabs (which would include Jewish Arabs.).

4) The Balfour Declaration (silly document predating the mandate akin to giving away what it did not own) and subsequent Mandate both insisted "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

5) No one considered that Zionists intended sovereignty, all western support for Zionism was based on the notion that Judaism shunned sovereignty over "Israel" pending the arrival of their Messiah (as if)

The Palestinians' claim is older, stronger and more deserving.

There was no international law that allowed winners of war rights over land and certainly none that could gave Zionists sovereinty.

 

[Kondor3]

Really?

1)They were the indigenous residents of Palestine for millenium (when Jews, who shunned soveriegnty over the land, numbered barely 3%). That it was not an autonomous state is irrelevant, you have heard of induividual property rights haven't you?

2) They were "promised" autonomy by Col MacMahon in 1916 in return for fighting Ottoman power and it was Palestinian beduin that fought with Lawrence to close the Ottoman trade routes to the Red Sea. They also fought the Ottomans in the 1850s as a Palestinian nationalist movement (failed).

3) The Sykes Picot Agreement whereby French & British carved up spheres of influence intent was autonomy for indigenous Arabs (which would include Jewish Arabs.).

4) The Balfour Declaration (silly document predating the mandate akin to giving away what it did not own) and subsequent Mandate both insisted "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

5) No one considered that Zionists intended sovereignty, all western support for Zionism was based on the notion that Judaism shunned sovereignty over "Israel" pending the arrival of their Messiah (as if)

The Palestinians' claim is older, stronger and more deserving.

There was no international law that allowed winners of war rights over land and certainly none that could gave Zionists sovereinty.

The trouble with all that Balfour Declaration and Mandate happy horseshit is that it promised a Jewish National Homeland carved from a piece of Old Palestine, but then crippled that promise with the IMPOSSIBLE condition that this would ONLY be done IF the rights of indigenous Arabs were not compromised.

That constituted a built-in, premeditated DEATH BLOW to any aspirations for a Jewish National Homeland carved from a piece of Old Palestine.

In truth, a Jewish National Homeland could NOT be created WITHOUT compromising some of those rights.

The people who devised those crippling conditions knew that they were actually paying lip-service to the idea of a Jewish National Homeland while simultaneously and hypocritically ensuring that conditions were set down to actually make that impossible in the Real World.

So, faced with a desperate need to create a Jewish National Homeland, and faced with the impossible qualifying conditions hypocritically and intentionally embedded in Balfour and the Mandate and the UN Partition Plan, the Jews, understandably, became disgusted, threw up their hands, collectively said "Phukk it", then proceeded to hack through the Gordian Knot and made good things happen for themselves, despite the hypocritical and otherwise insurmountable barriers to Statehood which the world had put in their path.

They did this by cherry-picking what they wanted from Balfour and the Mandate and the UN Partition Plan, and setting aside the rest.

After being bullied and lied-to by Ottomans, Arabs and the British for decades, and then having 6,000,000 of their own slaughtered in the 1940s by Euro-trash, the Jews had had enough, told the British and the Arabs to go phukk themselves, and completed the process of creating a Jewish National Homeland for themselves, carved out of Old Palestine according to the old promises of Balfour and the Mandate and the related 1947 UN Partitino, and to the Devil with the hindmost; consequences be damned.

Gutsy move; one helluva Comeback for a People who had nearly been slaughtered to Extinction in that part of the world. Good on them.

Frankly, the UN should have moved in, after the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War, and relocated the losing Palestinian population, much as it allowed the population transfers of Ethnic Germans from old East Prussia and the Sudetenland, or the transfers of population between Pakistan and India, as those two countries split-apart old British Imperial India, and Hindus and Muslims went their separate ways.

But, the UN failed to do this, and therefore, unwittingly, set the stage for 60+ years of pointless strife; a struggle which Rump Palestine cannot possibly hope to win.

There is no point in continuing the killing, from the Palestinian perspective, when there is no possibility of a Palestinian victory.

That is simply insane, but, then again, few people beyond the borders of Rump Palestine are willing to accord them Brightest-Crayon-in-the-Box status.

 

[Beelzebub]

Or Israel could abide by the law, pull out and make peace.

Just saying.

 

[Kondor3]

Or Israel could abide by the law, pull out and make peace.

Just saying.

Not when your opposites have sworn to come back later and drown you in the Med.

Not to mention the issues of Jerusalem and long-term border defensibility.

The Jews understand that Slow Long-Term Suicide is not the answer, and surrendering border defensibility is just that.