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.
'"The amount of energy necessary to refute Zionist bullshit is an order of magnitude larger that the energy required to produce it."-- Challenger's Law'There! Fixed it for you.
Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
As brought to you by the pallywood media company
Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign
Making it yet more islamonazi propaganda
I've always thought "Goy" or "Goyim" referred to non-Jewish people and I use it in that context.
The word goy means a nation or people as rylah has already pointed out. It has taken on a pejorative connotation in modern times, as have other incorrectly used Hebrew words such as "zion" and "hasbara" and "talmudic". It has been my experience that all people who use these foreign-to-them words in normal speech do so in order to introduce that pejorative connotation into their comments. This certainly is the case with your own use of language on this board.
In this particular case, you had already used the term "outsider" to describe yourself as not being Jewish, the addition of the term goy was therefore not necessary except to add this negative connotation -- a connotation that the Jewish people view goyim with disgust -- a very old anti-semitic libel.
You have since also used the Hebrew word hasbara which has the simple meaning of "explaining" but which you also imbue with a negative connotation of intentional deceit -- also a very old anti-semitic libel.
You are not fooling anyone. Well, except Tinman.
And kind of like Arab words like infidel and dhimmi.
So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
This actually has quite a bit of truth to it. See, Jews are nice. But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish. See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
This actually has quite a bit of truth to it. See, Jews are nice. But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish. See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
I think there is a tendancy to lump Jews all together even though they live in many countries and have many different views on the world. However, I'd like to know exactly WHY he thinks all Israeli's are "rude and boorish" - Israel is a melting pot culture and they're all "rude and boorish"? Dividing a group into "good" and "bad" based on a broad brush approach like that is suspect because it singles out one nationality as "bad" rather than acknowledging the diversity that exists in reality.
It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews. All during the Mandate period the Palestinians just wanted to be Palestinians with no reference to religion. It was the Zionists/Britain who wanted people to be divide by religion. Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents. That is the way it is in the US and that is as it should be.Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps. So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented.
First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians. Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture. Quite literally erasing them from the map. That's a deception.
But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow. And that brings me to the second problem. This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other. The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority. The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.
So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.
Let's use this one. And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:
1946. The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.
Wow! Just like the US and other civilized Western nations.....BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations were too divisive.
It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews.
... Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents ...
BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations were too divisive.
It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews. All during the Mandate period the Palestinians just wanted to be Palestinians with no reference to religion. It was the Zionists/Britain who wanted people to be divide by religion. Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents. That is the way it is in the US and that is as it should be.Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps. So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented.
First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians. Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture. Quite literally erasing them from the map. That's a deception.
But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow. And that brings me to the second problem. This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other. The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority. The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.
So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.
Let's use this one. And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:
1946. The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.
BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations were too divisive.
How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body....the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...
Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere<snip>. . . There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body....the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...
Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
