What Kind of State in Israel?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore

Ah, yes. You don't recognize the mandate.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the defined borders were in the annex to the application. I've already showed this a dozen times.

Indeed, but it is illegal to declare borders inside someone else's borders. That is why Israel has none.

(COMMENT)

This will be one of those things we will not agree upon.

Most Respectfully,
R

What about the mandate?

 

[P F Tinmore]

(COMMENT)

They (The UN) did not create a "State of Palestine." The "Palestinians did not announce independence. In fact, they various agencies and organizations that perport to speak on behalf of the Palestinians, rejected the offer of statehood. If any recognized authority had declared Palestinian Independence, it wouldn't be necessary for Mahmoud Abbas to go through all the trouble he has, to get recognition, and he is only part way now.

Of course none of that is true.

About 80 local Palestinian leaders got together in 1948 and declared independence on the territory within its defined borders. (Israel declared independence without defined territory.) A state does not need recognition to be a state.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

The Palestinians never rejected the offer of statehood.

The only "state" ever offered to the Palestinians required them to surrender, disarm, give over half of their country to foreigners, and hold their hand out for whatever crumbs they would be offered.

Name any country in the world who would accept such an offer.

 

[irosie91]

(COMMENT)

They (The UN) did not create a "State of Palestine." The "Palestinians did not announce independence. In fact, they various agencies and organizations that perport to speak on behalf of the Palestinians, rejected the offer of statehood. If any recognized authority had declared Palestinian Independence, it wouldn't be necessary for Mahmoud Abbas to go through all the trouble he has, to get recognition, and he is only part way now.

Of course none of that is true.

About 80 local Palestinian leaders got together in 1948 and declared independence on the territory within its defined borders. (Israel declared independence without defined territory.) A state does not need recognition to be a state.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

The Palestinians never rejected the offer of statehood.

The only "state" ever offered to the Palestinians required them to surrender, disarm, give over half of their country to foreigners, and hold their hand out for whatever crumbs they would be offered.

Name any country in the world who would accept such an offer.

Good point ----they would have had to work to eat instead of getting it all free ----
of course they did not want it. Things would have deteriorated to the pre
ziionist days------malaria, tubeculosis, polio, cholera, shistosomiasis, impetigo,
filth and even leprosy----and no doctors ---- in general----starving discarded
kids and cripples in the gutters -----just like it was in the early 1800s
Anyone interested ---there are discusssions of the filth of jerusalem and its
sicknesses before jews were able to start buying land in palestine.
A real disgusting sewer of sickness----kids going from polio to cholers

 

[RoccoR]

irosie91, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I understand.

Of course none of that is true.

About 80 local Palestinian leaders got together in 1948 and declared independence on the territory within its defined borders. (Israel declared independence without defined territory.) A state does not need recognition to be a state.

The Palestinians never rejected the offer of statehood.

The only "state" ever offered to the Palestinians required them to surrender, disarm, give over half of their country to foreigners, and hold their hand out for whatever crumbs they would be offered.

Name any country in the world who would accept such an offer.

Good point ----they would have had to work to eat instead of getting it all free ---- of course they did not want it. Things would have deteriorated to the pre ziionist days------malaria, tubeculosis, polio, cholera, shistosomiasis, impetigo, filth and even leprosy----and no doctors ---- in general----starving discarded kids and cripples in the gutters -----just like it was in the early 1800s Anyone interested ---there are discusssions of the filth of jerusalem and its sicknesses before jews were able to start buying land in palestine.
A real disgusting sewer of sickness----kids going from polio to cholers

(COMMENT)

The assumption here is that the Palestinians were actually giving up sovereignty. They were not. (This is a point that P F Tinmore and I completely disagree on.) But they must adhere to this ridiculous idea that that they are fighting for something - even though it was not theirs to begin with. To believe otherwise would take the legitimacy of their freedom fighting claim away. But there was never a State of Palestine that was in any way not under the control of another power. The Allied Powers through the UN (LON) set the Administration and Control of the the Mandate on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians had not built a nation. Remember, it was always under the control of another sovereignty until 14 May, 1948. And they cannot deny the legitimacy of The Allied Powers through the UN (LON), because that was the mechanism used to establish every country from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Every border made of straight lines was artificial and designed by The Allied Powers through the UN (LON).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

irosie91, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I understand.

The only "state" ever offered to the Palestinians required them to surrender, disarm, give over half of their country to foreigners, and hold their hand out for whatever crumbs they would be offered.

Name any country in the world who would accept such an offer.

Good point ----they would have had to work to eat instead of getting it all free ---- of course they did not want it. Things would have deteriorated to the pre ziionist days------malaria, tubeculosis, polio, cholera, shistosomiasis, impetigo, filth and even leprosy----and no doctors ---- in general----starving discarded kids and cripples in the gutters -----just like it was in the early 1800s Anyone interested ---there are discusssions of the filth of jerusalem and its sicknesses before jews were able to start buying land in palestine.
A real disgusting sewer of sickness----kids going from polio to cholers

(COMMENT)

The assumption here is that the Palestinians were actually giving up sovereignty. They were not. (This is a point that P F Tinmore and I completely disagree on.) But they must adhere to this ridiculous idea that that they are fighting for something that was theirs to begin with. But there was never a State of Palestine that was in any way not under the control of another power. The Allied Powers through the UN (LON) set the Administration and Control of the the Mandate on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians had not built a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is the Palestinian's country no matter how much the propagandists say that it is not. They hold the legal and moral high ground and they have never surrendered their rights to anyone.

 

[irosie91]

Right TINNIE----in fact the MOGHULS never gave up their sovereignty and right over
the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT either NEVER!!!!! India--pakistan, Kashmir---maybe
even AFGHANISTAN is THE MOGHUL EMPIRE-----
LONG LIVE SHAH JAHAN AND SLUT MUMTAZ in the memory
of the deluded

always remember ----muhummad invented DHAL AND CHAPPATIS and
The art and architecture of the BYZANT-----and glass and lemons

Years ago----I listened with fascination to the founder of the organization
that later morphed into CAIR-----actually screaming (in the 60s )
PITAAAA IS ARRRABBBBBB the jerk was annoyed that
some jews had set up falafel shops
in the USA

remember arabism, baathism, pita, caliphate --the shit
never went away and has
always enjoyed the love
of imperiaist Russia

An interesting factoid----Pig nasser actually used NITROGEN
MUSTARD GAS ---in yemen in the 1960s IN
SUPPORT OF BAATHISTS OVER THERE---with the
BLESSINGS OF THE USSR

 

[ima]

Israel is like the dinosaurs, pre-extinction.

 

[Billo_Really]

The assumption here is that the Palestinians were actually giving up sovereignty. They were not. (This is a point that P F Tinmore and I completely disagree on.) But they must adhere to this ridiculous idea that that they are fighting for something - even though it was not theirs to begin with. To believe otherwise would take the legitimacy of their freedom fighting claim away. But there was never a State of Palestine that was in any way not under the control of another power. The Allied Powers through the UN (LON) set the Administration and Control of the the Mandate on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians had not built a nation. Remember, it was always under the control of another sovereignty until 14 May, 1948. And they cannot deny the legitimacy of The Allied Powers through the UN (LON), because that was the mechanism used to establish every country from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Every border made of straight lines was artificial and designed by The Allied Powers through the UN (LON).

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot migrate into an area (as the zionists did) and automatically have more land rights than the people already living there. Arabs had been living there for a 1000 years and 750,000 of them were driven from their homes due to jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you think its right to move into a neighborhood, go up to one of the homes, walk in the door and tell the people in there to get out, this is your house now?

 

[ima]

The assumption here is that the Palestinians were actually giving up sovereignty. They were not. (This is a point that P F Tinmore and I completely disagree on.) But they must adhere to this ridiculous idea that that they are fighting for something - even though it was not theirs to begin with. To believe otherwise would take the legitimacy of their freedom fighting claim away. But there was never a State of Palestine that was in any way not under the control of another power. The Allied Powers through the UN (LON) set the Administration and Control of the the Mandate on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians had not built a nation. Remember, it was always under the control of another sovereignty until 14 May, 1948. And they cannot deny the legitimacy of The Allied Powers through the UN (LON), because that was the mechanism used to establish every country from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Every border made of straight lines was artificial and designed by The Allied Powers through the UN (LON).

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot migrate into an area (as the zionists did) and automatically have more land rights than the people already living there. Arabs had been living there for a 1000 years and 750,000 of them were driven from their homes due to jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you think its right to move into a neighborhood, go up to one of the homes, walk in the door and tell the people in there to get out, this is your house now?

Hitler did it, and the jews are just following in their saviour's footsteps.

 

[RoccoR]

ima, irosie91, loinboy, P F Tinmore, et al,

I cannot defend all things Israel. I'm not that competent, nor am I that knowledgeable about certain accusations and events.

What little I do know, leads me to believe that much of the self righteous attitude and cosmetic victimization shields the truth and is an obstruction to the realization of peace.

Palestine is the Palestinian's country no matter how much the propagandists say that it is not. They hold the legal and moral high ground and they have never surrendered their rights to anyone.

(COMMENT)

Let's address this first. No one said that the Palestinian "surrendered their rights to anyone." What was said was that the Palestinian never made the effort to establish a Palestinian "State" and then, when they made a superficial (shoddy work) attempt, it was well too late. What was said, is they that the same time to accomplish something as the Israelis, they had placement and economic advantages over the Israelis, they had external support from every regional country - over the Israelis. Yet, the Israelis were able to accomplish so much more. The Palestinian, for all their cry and posing as victims were not able to establish a nation, or make nearly the same measure of contributions to their ethnic culture or the world, to anywhere near the levels demonstrated by deeds in Israel.

This is merely a rationalization necessary to continue the armed aggression initiated by the Palestinians and Arab Nations in 1948. It has no basis in fact. This follows some ridiculous logic that Palestine was a sovereignty unto itself during the Mandate; and that the Arab Palestinian had some extraordinary claim to establish a sovereignty.

You cannot speak to the moral high ground. The Palestinian, whether firing anti-tank rockets at a school bus full of children, stabbing to death a family while they sleep, ambushing civilian cars on the road, suicide bombings in crowded shopping centers and restaurants, indiscriminate rocket fire, or just entering a High School in Kfar Etzion and randomly stabbing students, --- these are not the tools or the methods of a people that hold the high moral ground.

All terrorist (insurgents, freedom fighters, resistances movements, etc) share this common language they use to justify their actions. Even Osama bin Laden (another famous Arab Freedom Fighter), in his "Open Letter to America" placed the Palestinian Cause as the number one issue for why he attacked America. That is one hell of a high moral endorsement and solidarity in common cause.

You cannot migrate into an area (as the zionists did) and automatically have more land rights than the people already living there. Arabs had been living there for a 1000 years and 750,000 of them were driven from their homes due to jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

(COMMENT)

This is a switch in the discussion from a sovereignty issue to a civil and/property ownership issue.

The Israeli did not "automatically have more land rights than the people already living there." And I would never justify the unlawful appropriation of the private ownership of land.

The Irgun is a tricky thing. I think of them as a terrorist group, so I know what you mean. Somewhere around here, I have a British Wanted Poster for Menachem Begin, the last Commander of the Irgun. Oddly enough, they to, thought of themselves as freedom fighters against British occupation during the Mandate. The rhetoric they used then, sounds eerily familiar to that being used by today's Palestinian Terrorist.

Do you think its right to move into a neighborhood, go up to one of the homes, walk in the door and tell the people in there to get out, this is your house now?

(COMMENT)

I do not. Yet, somehow, I don't think the story is complete --- that, that is all there is to it. Nor have I a complete understanding of the circumstances.

But, no - I don't support or approve the confiscation of privately own property without extraordinary justification. But, again - is this justification for the continuation of a struggle for more than a half century?

Hitler did it, and the jews are just following in their saviour's footsteps.

(COMMENT)

This does not lend your argument any credibility whatsoever. Such inflammatory and outrageous remarks only tend to deflect the questions at hand. Anyone who knows anything about the relationship between the Jewish People (those that survived) and the NAZI, knows that this statement is a red herring, intended to invoke an emotional response.

Anyone can make such claims about anyone. The use of NAZI association is common to both sides, to the point that it is now a signal that nothing important is being said: [Example False Propaganda Or!)] Stakelbeck on Terror: Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/20...rror-The-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-in-the-Holocaust/

The book outlines the history of Islamic anti-Semitism in the Middle East, including the 1941 organized massacre of Iraqi Jews in Baghdad known as The Farhud, or "violent dispossession." Watch as Black breaks down the larger Arab Muslim role in the Nazi Holocaust, which included an active alliance between the leader of the Palestinians and Adolf Hitler, and how this history still affects the Middle East today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ima]

C'mon Roc, you know just as well as I do that without WWII, the West doesn't need to back the zionist play in Palestine because the Jews don't get persecuted and don't have to go anywhere (and at the end of WWII, the Allied countries didn't want to let Jews into their countries either). Ipso facto, without Hitler, Israel maybe/possibly/probably never comes into being, making Hitler the saviour of Israel, who led the Jews to the Promised Land. It might sound strange, but it is what it is.

 

[irosie91]

Crotchboy
R[/quote]You cannot migrate into an area (as the zionists did) and automatically have more land rights than the people already living there. Arabs had been living there for a 1000 years and 750,000 of them were driven from their homes due to jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

from rosie
The migration that resulted in the current state of Israel began in the early 1800s --
when the OTTOMAN TURKS moderated the racist filth of shariah law which had
been IMPOSED by invading arabs about 1000 years earlier effectively including
the CONFISCATION of all property OWNED BY JEWS . However the population
of palestine was never entirely bereft of jews-------AND the migration of jews
to palestine in the early 1800s was not the FIRST EFFORT of jews to restablish
themselves in the land that had been invaded and stolen by arab invaders The
project involved NO VIOLENCE OR FORCE at all-----the OTTOMANS were eager to
SELL land since ---they had no profit at all from the land on which many arabs
simply squatted and exploited



Crotchboy>>>
Do you think its right to move into a neighborhood, go up to one of the homes, walk in the door and tell the people in there to get out, this is your house now?[/QUOTE]

rosie>>
I did not grow up in the city in which I live now-----When I came here---I bought a
little house that had been unoccupied for a few years. (what a mess---but it was
a price I could handle at the time) When I opened the door---I discovered squatters---
I gave them three weeks to leave-----they had been squatting so long that they
had created an illegal bathroom and toilet ---and had a THRIVING veggie garden
in the backyard----decorated with old "bowling balls" stuck on makeshift
tripods (werid but true) and had CLEVERLY siphoned electricity from a street line.
They had lived in the city for a long time----and I was a newcomer----but I had
BOUGHT THE HOUSE just as the jews of the 1800s bought land In most cases,
early on-----they simply HIRED the squatters ----the myth that they knocked on doors
threw people out of their homes is propaganda. In most cases the squatters had
mud floor shacks PS the squatters in the house I bought---left politely. IN order
to understand the RESENTMENT of the arabs who were displaced when jews
bought land from the OTTOMANS one has to understand ISLAMIC LAW----islamic
law includes provisions that render it MANDATORY that muslims have free access
to the homes of jews and land ownership by jews is ----very tentative---
it can be terminated at the will of the muslim CHIEFTAIN ---ie ---the 'ownership
does not actually exist I am sure crotch boy is INDIGNANT that my husband's
family home was confiscated in the shariah shit hole in which he was born.

For those who do not know----"arabs" still hold a grudge against TURKS --
for selling land to jews and continue to describe the event as
"JEWS STEALING ARAB LAND" (the ottomans who sold land, sold
land that they actually did OWN----not just any and all land in palestine)

The good ERDOGAN is making up for the OTTOMAN deficiencies
in ISLAMIC ADHERENCE-----by becoming an AVOWED ISLAMICIST.
He will fix the problem by progressive imposing the racist filth
of SHARIAH

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

Yes, a conditional theoretical statement on possibilities involving an alternative history. While this sounds very logical, I assure you that it is totally an invalid way of thinking.

You make two assertions here:

• Without Hitler, no Israel. ... OR ... Not "H" THEN Not "I"
• With Hitler then Israel. ... OR ... IF "H" THEN "I"

In Logic and Critical Thinking, we call this "Denying the Antecedent." It is a logical fallacy. But it sure sounds good, and makes sense to a lot of people. Yet, it is totally wrong.

C'mon Roc, you know just as well as I do that without WWII, the West doesn't need to back the zionist play in Palestine because the Jews don't get persecuted and don't have to go anywhere (and at the end of WWII, the Allied countries didn't want to let Jews into their countries either). Ipso facto, without Hitler, Israel maybe/possibly/probably never comes into being, making Hitler the saviour of Israel, who led the Jews to the Promised Land. It might sound strange, but it is what it is.

(SIMPLIFICATION)

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:

• If A then B
• Not A Therefore, Not B

Examples:

• IF you get hit by a car when you are six THEN you will die young. But IF you were not hit by a car when you were six. THEN you will not die young. (Logically invalid: Of course, you could be hit by a train, by poisoned, or suffer a catastrophic illness at age seven, in which case you still die young.)

• IF I am in Tel Aviv THEN I am in Israel. IF I am not in Tel Aviv, thus, THEN I am not in Israel. (Of course, I could be in Haifa, in which case I could still be in Israel.)

Let's try a series that is just a little more complicated.

• IF there was a Hitler THEN there is the persecution of Jews. But IF there was not a Hitler, THEN there would be no persecution of Jews.
  -->(There were several period in history were the Jews were persecuted, there being a personality like Hitler is not a condition for persecution.)
• IF there was no persecution of Jews by Hitler, THEN there would no sympathy for the Jews.
  -->(King Feisal Hussein, of Iraq and Syria agreed to Jewish National Home according to British Mandate (Israel and Jordan) in 1918. He met Dr. Weizmann in Jordan (1918) and Paris (1919) where they reached an agreement on mutual aid, conditional on the implementation of British promises to the Arabs. This is pre-Hitler.)
• IF there is no sympathy for the Jews THEN there is no support for a Homeland.
  -->(The Balfour Declaration was made November 1917, Hitler was in the WW-I German Army as a Corporal. His rise to power would not be noticed for another decade. But clearly there was seen a need in 1917 for a Jewish Homeland. Hitler and NAZI Persecution were not prerequisite for the vision or the perceived need.)
• IF there is no support for a Homeland, THEN Israel is not born.
  -->(This may actually be the only true derived statement.)

My point here, of course, that while the claim sounds realist and descriptive of the truth, in the final analysis, it is circumstantial. It may be the case that, in an alternative history, Israel is not created. But, the Mandate was an outcome of the First World War, not dependent on a Second World War. And, most importantly, the Palestinians were showing no real social, economic, or industrial development of any consequence. Eventually some entity was going to shape it into a productive landscape; if not the Jewish People, then Syria, Jordan or Iraq.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

The arguement presented by IMA can be discussed ALSO from the POV of the influence that ADOLF ABU ALI had on the arabs of the post world war I era----and the fall of the
OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Ie ---another issue is WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE HAD NOT BEEN DISBANDED and world war I had not happened?

Adolf abu ali was an outcome of WORLD WAR I as was ARAB NATIONALISM ---
and SPECIFICALLY THE BAATHIST MOVEMENT which is the filth of the present
day ASSAD and was the filth of Saddaam and was the filth of nasser and was
the filth of AL HUSSEINI. Even before world war I -----Israel was well on its way.
Tel aviv was a ZIONIST CITY RISHON LE TZION and the migration of jews
to palestine was not being impeded by the OTTOMANS ----that program was
created by ARABIST FILTH NATIONALISM and british cooperation thereof.

Without world war I-----Israel would have been Israel by 1930 <<pure conjecture ---
but more logical than the conjecture of ima

 

[ima]

ima, et al,

Yes, a conditional theoretical statement on possibilities involving an alternative history. While this sounds very logical, I assure you that it is totally an invalid way of thinking.

You make two assertions here:

• Without Hitler, no Israel. ... OR ... Not "H" THEN Not "I"
• With Hitler then Israel. ... OR ... IF "H" THEN "I"

In Logic and Critical Thinking, we call this "Denying the Antecedent." It is a logical fallacy. But it sure sounds good, and makes sense to a lot of people. Yet, it is totally wrong.

C'mon Roc, you know just as well as I do that without WWII, the West doesn't need to back the zionist play in Palestine because the Jews don't get persecuted and don't have to go anywhere (and at the end of WWII, the Allied countries didn't want to let Jews into their countries either). Ipso facto, without Hitler, Israel maybe/possibly/probably never comes into being, making Hitler the saviour of Israel, who led the Jews to the Promised Land. It might sound strange, but it is what it is.

(SIMPLIFICATION)

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:

• If A then B
• Not A Therefore, Not B

Examples:

• IF you get hit by a car when you are six THEN you will die young. But IF you were not hit by a car when you were six. THEN you will not die young. (Logically invalid: Of course, you could be hit by a train, by poisoned, or suffer a catastrophic illness at age seven, in which case you still die young.)

• IF I am in Tel Aviv THEN I am in Israel. IF I am not in Tel Aviv, thus, THEN I am not in Israel. (Of course, I could be in Haifa, in which case I could still be in Israel.)

Let's try a series that is just a little more complicated.

• IF there was a Hitler THEN there is the persecution of Jews. But IF there was not a Hitler, THEN there would be no persecution of Jews.
  -->(There were several period in history were the Jews were persecuted, there being a personality like Hitler is not a condition for persecution.)
• IF there was no persecution of Jews by Hitler, THEN there would no sympathy for the Jews.
  -->(King Feisal Hussein, of Iraq and Syria agreed to Jewish National Home according to British Mandate (Israel and Jordan) in 1918. He met Dr. Weizmann in Jordan (1918) and Paris (1919) where they reached an agreement on mutual aid, conditional on the implementation of British promises to the Arabs. This is pre-Hitler.)
• IF there is no sympathy for the Jews THEN there is no support for a Homeland.
  -->(The Balfour Declaration was made November 1917, Hitler was in the WW-I German Army as a Corporal. His rise to power would not be noticed for another decade. But clearly there was seen a need in 1917 for a Jewish Homeland. Hitler and NAZI Persecution were not prerequisite for the vision or the perceived need.)
• IF there is no support for a Homeland, THEN Israel is not born.
  -->(This may actually be the only true derived statement.)

My point here, of course, that while the claim sounds realist and descriptive of the truth, in the final analysis, it is circumstantial. It may be the case that, in an alternative history, Israel is not created. But, the Mandate was an outcome of the First World War, not dependent on a Second World War. And, most importantly, the Palestinians were showing no real social, economic, or industrial development of any consequence. Eventually some entity was going to shape it into a productive landscape; if not the Jewish People, then Syria, Jordan or Iraq.

Most Respectfully,
R

GeeZ, all that fart smoke, someone OPEN A WINDOW!!!

And in your last paragraph, you agreed with me that without WWII, Israel is maybe not created. Making Hitler what again? C'mon, I know you know this one.

 

[irosie91]

Israel was inevitable by the later part of the 19th century Hitler did not galvanize its
establishment----Adolf abu ali thwarted it by galvanizing the filth of arab nationalism which
was and is the main opposition to the establishment of Israel. In fact BAATHISM came out of the ass of Adolf abu ali right into the mouth of al husseini---thence sucked up by Gamal Abdul nasser, Sadaam and papa and baby assad

 

[RoccoR]

ima, et al,

All that smoke, probably means there is fire behind it.

My point here, of course, that while the claim sounds realist and descriptive of the truth, in the final analysis, it is circumstantial. It may be the case that, in an alternative history, Israel is not created. But, the Mandate was an outcome of the First World War, not dependent on a Second World War. And, most importantly, the Palestinians were showing no real social, economic, or industrial development of any consequence. Eventually some entity was going to shape it into a productive landscape; if not the Jewish People, then Syria, Jordan or Iraq.

GeeZ, all that fart smoke, someone OPEN A WINDOW!!!

And in your last paragraph, you agreed with me that without WWII, Israel is maybe not created. Making Hitler what again? C'mon, I know you know this one.

(COMMENT )

Manybe you need to read it again!

The logic does not require either Hitler, or WWII, to be a foundational prerequisite for the creation and existence of the Jewish State. In an "alternative history" anything is possible. In anything is possible, and some more probably that others. Maybe, in an alternative history, the original Kingdom of Israel is never conquered, thus never requiring reconstitution.

But here, we are more concerned with reality and the linkage between Hitler/NAZI and Israel. While WWII increased the likelihood of an Israel, it was a prerequisite for the reconstitution.

Now I realize that there are many arguments that, in their narrative form, sound so logical that they take-on a life of their own. With them comes almost a mental gravity that sucks people into the center of it. This is one of those arguments, except it is not a pivotable point or essential conception. There is an argument that is both a pivotable point AND essential conception --- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian. That is an "alternative history" that has been taken on in belief on such a scale that it borders on a "mass delusion."

In every anti-Somebody propaganda effort, there are elements of truth and a position taken that looks so undeniably logical that it becomes inconceivable to dispute. Most religions and spiritual belief systems have this in common. A very common example that many of the great religions have is that their fundamental source document is a "revealed word" predicated on their particular deity. It is a belief held so strong (the VMAT-2 Gene) that if some kill for it, and some die for it (MAO-A Gene). [ame=http://youtu.be/_mbe3SSIj-4]The Warrior Gene, MAOA-3R - Dr. Phil April 4th, 2011 - YouTube[/ame] It is a pivotable belief because if it becomes in question, the entire belief is place in jeopardy.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

ima, et al,

All that smoke, probably means there is fire behind it.

My point here, of course, that while the claim sounds realist and descriptive of the truth, in the final analysis, it is circumstantial. It may be the case that, in an alternative history, Israel is not created. But, the Mandate was an outcome of the First World War, not dependent on a Second World War. And, most importantly, the Palestinians were showing no real social, economic, or industrial development of any consequence. Eventually some entity was going to shape it into a productive landscape; if not the Jewish People, then Syria, Jordan or Iraq.

GeeZ, all that fart smoke, someone OPEN A WINDOW!!!

And in your last paragraph, you agreed with me that without WWII, Israel is maybe not created. Making Hitler what again? C'mon, I know you know this one.

(COMMENT )

Manybe you need to read it again!

The logic does not require either Hitler, or WWII, to be a foundational prerequisite for the creation and existence of the Jewish State. In an "alternative history" anything is possible. In anything is possible, and some more probably that others. Maybe, in an alternative history, the original Kingdom of Israel is never conquered, thus never requiring reconstitution.

But here, we are more concerned with reality and the linkage between Hitler/NAZI and Israel. While WWII increased the likelihood of an Israel, it was a prerequisite for the reconstitution.

Now I realize that there are many arguments that, in their narrative form, sound so logical that they take-on a life of their own. With them comes almost a mental gravity that sucks people into the center of it. This is one of those arguments, except it is not a pivotable point or essential conception. There is an argument that is both a pivotable point AND essential conception --- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian. That is an "alternative history" that has been taken on in belief on such a scale that it borders on a "mass delusion."

In every anti-Somebody propaganda effort, there are elements of truth and a position taken that looks so undeniably logical that it becomes inconceivable to dispute. Most religions and spiritual belief systems have this in common. A very common example that many of the great religions have is that their fundamental source document is a "revealed word" predicated on their particular deity. It is a belief held so strong (the VMAT-2 Gene) that if some kill for it, and some die for it (MAO-A Gene). [ame=http://youtu.be/_mbe3SSIj-4]The Warrior Gene, MAOA-3R - Dr. Phil April 4th, 2011 - YouTube[/ame][ame=http://youtu.be/35cOqZI067E]Born to Rage? - YouTube[/ame] It is a pivotable belief because if it becomes in question, the entire belief is place in jeopardy.

Most Respectfully,
R

--- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian.

The problem with your assessment is that when Palestine, and other states, were carved out of the defunct empire the rights did not go to the people who actually lived there but to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

 

[Hossfly]

The assumption here is that the Palestinians were actually giving up sovereignty. They were not. (This is a point that P F Tinmore and I completely disagree on.) But they must adhere to this ridiculous idea that that they are fighting for something - even though it was not theirs to begin with. To believe otherwise would take the legitimacy of their freedom fighting claim away. But there was never a State of Palestine that was in any way not under the control of another power. The Allied Powers through the UN (LON) set the Administration and Control of the the Mandate on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians had not built a nation. Remember, it was always under the control of another sovereignty until 14 May, 1948. And they cannot deny the legitimacy of The Allied Powers through the UN (LON), because that was the mechanism used to establish every country from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Every border made of straight lines was artificial and designed by The Allied Powers through the UN (LON).

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot migrate into an area (as the zionists did) and automatically have more land rights than the people already living there. Arabs had been living there for a 1000 years and 750,000 of them were driven from their homes due to jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

Do you think its right to move into a neighborhood, go up to one of the homes, walk in the door and tell the people in there to get out, this is your house now?

Hitler did it, and the jews are just following in their saviour's footsteps.

At the Nazi Bund meeting in Frau Ima's little town, when they all face the picture of their beloved Hitler, Frau Ima gives the best SIEG HEIL. Next time they show the documentary about American Nazis on the History Channel, perhaps Frau Ima should watch it and see if he/she can spot some of his/her friends.

 

[Hossfly]

ima, et al,

All that smoke, probably means there is fire behind it.

GeeZ, all that fart smoke, someone OPEN A WINDOW!!!

And in your last paragraph, you agreed with me that without WWII, Israel is maybe not created. Making Hitler what again? C'mon, I know you know this one.

(COMMENT )

Manybe you need to read it again!

The logic does not require either Hitler, or WWII, to be a foundational prerequisite for the creation and existence of the Jewish State. In an "alternative history" anything is possible. In anything is possible, and some more probably that others. Maybe, in an alternative history, the original Kingdom of Israel is never conquered, thus never requiring reconstitution.

But here, we are more concerned with reality and the linkage between Hitler/NAZI and Israel. While WWII increased the likelihood of an Israel, it was a prerequisite for the reconstitution.

Now I realize that there are many arguments that, in their narrative form, sound so logical that they take-on a life of their own. With them comes almost a mental gravity that sucks people into the center of it. This is one of those arguments, except it is not a pivotable point or essential conception. There is an argument that is both a pivotable point AND essential conception --- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian. That is an "alternative history" that has been taken on in belief on such a scale that it borders on a "mass delusion."

In every anti-Somebody propaganda effort, there are elements of truth and a position taken that looks so undeniably logical that it becomes inconceivable to dispute. Most religions and spiritual belief systems have this in common. A very common example that many of the great religions have is that their fundamental source document is a "revealed word" predicated on their particular deity. It is a belief held so strong (the VMAT-2 Gene) that if some kill for it, and some die for it (MAO-A Gene). [ame=http://youtu.be/_mbe3SSIj-4]The Warrior Gene, MAOA-3R - Dr. Phil April 4th, 2011 - YouTube[/ame][ame=http://youtu.be/35cOqZI067E]Born to Rage? - YouTube[/ame] It is a pivotable belief because if it becomes in question, the entire belief is place in jeopardy.

Most Respectfully,
R

--- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian.

The problem with your assessment is that when Palestine, and other states, were carved out of the defunct empire the rights did not go to the people who actually lived there but to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

Yeah, Tinnie, all those "criminals" were able to provide jobs for the poor Arabs from the surrounding countries so those Arabs came in droves. Tinnie would rather that the Jews didn't come so that these poor Arabs would have stayed in their own countries and continued to be impoverished. Of course, Tinnie, even though he claims to be Christian, seems to have no problem with the Muslim leaving the Saudi Peninsula centuries ago and invading the surrounding Christian countries, forcing many of the Christians to convert to Islam and killing so many who refused. And now the descendants of the Christians who were lucky enough to survive the Muslim onslaught can't even practice their religion in peace. I doubt if Tinnie ever worries about them.