Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[rylah]

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

Is that why they openly declared Jihad against every Jew an obligation, picking an emblem of pierced Star of David, and started with attacking a Jewish village on the Arab side of the partition, before being pushed back by a British convoy?

Is that why they went to facilitate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Iraq?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come on...

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

(COMMENT)

How about giving a time frame of reference, and then your source for that same timeframe...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

Is that why they openly declared Jihad against every Jew an obligation, picking an emblem of pierced Star of David, and started with attacking a Jewish village on the Arab side of the partition, before being pushed back by a British convoy?

Is that why they went to facilitate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Iraq?

Deflection.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come on...

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

(COMMENT)

How about giving a time frame of reference, and then your source for that same timeframe...

Most Respectfully,
R

What I posted is true. Why are trying to smokescreen the issue.

 

[rylah]

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

Is that why they openly declared Jihad against every Jew an obligation, picking an emblem of pierced Star of David, and started with attacking a Jewish village on the Arab side of the partition, before being pushed back by a British convoy?

Is that why they went to facilitate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Iraq?

Deflection.

Your claim was that the attack was against Israeli troops,
but there were no Israeli troops present in Yehi'am village in the Arab side of the partition, neither during the pogrom against Jews in Iraq. Neither soldiers were mentioned in the Arab declaration of Jihad against Jews.

Are You implying that they were all troops?
Or that mere Jewish presence was enough an excuse to attack?
What harm did the Jews of Yehi'am cause to the Arab population to excuse the attack?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How do we know it is true?

What I posted is true. Why are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

You did not post a date, place or engaged force involved.

You need to be specific and not so ambiguous.

It is quite possible that Israeli Forces engaged Arab League forces outside Israel and inside Trustee Territory. The case of small plots of territory that were overcome by Israelis in hot pursuit of retreating Arab League Forces is possible in a couple of cases where the FEBA had to be extended in order to establish a defendable position. These areas were accounted for in the agreed upon Armistices arrangements.

Your implication without substance is mere subterfuge to make it confusing to a reader. It is like saying that the State of Palestine, as recognized in December 2012, actually had any sovereign territory encapsulated by a Palestinian control border.

And if you bring up the nonsense about the entirety of the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate for Palestine, as being some sort of Palestinian State, that is even more confusing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

Is that why they openly declared Jihad against every Jew an obligation, picking an emblem of pierced Star of David, and started with attacking a Jewish village on the Arab side of the partition, before being pushed back by a British convoy?

Is that why they went to facilitate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Iraq?

Deflection.

Your claim was that the attack was against Israeli troops,
but there were no Israeli troops present in Yehi'am village in the Arab side of the partition, neither during the pogrom against Jews in Iraq. Neither soldiers were mentioned in the Arab declaration of Jihad against Jews.

Are You implying that they were all troops?
Or that mere Jewish presence was enough an excuse to attack?
What harm did the Jews of Yehi'am cause to the Arab population to excuse the attack?

It is Israel who likes to put all Jews in the same pot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How do we know it is true?

What I posted is true. Why are trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

You did not post a date, place or engaged force involved.

You need to be specific and not so ambiguous.

It is quite possible that Israeli Forces engaged Arab League forces outside Israel and inside Trustee Territory. The case of small plots of territory that were overcome by Israelis in hot pursuit of retreating Arab League Forces is possible in a couple of cases where the FEBA had to be extended in order to establish a defendable position. These areas were accounted for in the agreed upon Armistices arrangements.

Your implication without substance is mere subterfuge to make it confusing to a reader. It is like saying that the State of Palestine, as recognized in December 2012, actually had any sovereign territory encapsulated by a Palestinian control border.

And if you bring up the nonsense about the entirety of the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate for Palestine, as being some sort of Palestinian State, that is even more confusing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Talk about smokescreens.

 

[rylah]

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

Is that why they openly declared Jihad against every Jew an obligation, picking an emblem of pierced Star of David, and started with attacking a Jewish village on the Arab side of the partition, before being pushed back by a British convoy?

Is that why they went to facilitate the Arab pogroms against Jews in Iraq?

Deflection.

Your claim was that the attack was against Israeli troops,
but there were no Israeli troops present in Yehi'am village in the Arab side of the partition, neither during the pogrom against Jews in Iraq. Neither soldiers were mentioned in the Arab declaration of Jihad against Jews.

Are You implying that they were all troops?
Or that mere Jewish presence was enough an excuse to attack?
What harm did the Jews of Yehi'am cause to the Arab population to excuse the attack?

It is Israel who likes to put all Jews in the same pot.

Really, then what was the Arab excuse for simultaneously attacking their Jewish neighbors,
before reconstitution of Israel and Zionism?

That Jews refused to die out as a minority?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH come on...

Myths and facts on the Nakba

Nobody attacked Israel.

Oh PAH-leese. Who did they attack then? Jews?

They fought Israeli troops who were in Palestine.

Look it up.

(COMMENT)

How about giving a time frame of reference, and then your source for that same timeframe...

Most Respectfully,
R

What I posted is true. Why are trying to smokescreen the issue.

Deflection.

 

[Hollie]

 

[Hollie]

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?

 

[Hollie]

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?

The always present conspiracy theory.

Why is Islamism still so tribal after all these centuries?

 

[Hollie]

What better to celebrate a “holy month” than to teach the Islamic Death Cultist the way of killing.

Just another example of the mental illness that afflicts the Arabs-Moslems posers,


PMW Bulletins
Boy taught to shoot at Jews – “the enemy” - in special Ramadan series on PA TV about Arab village

Boy taught to shoot at Jews – “the enemy” - in special Ramadan series on PA TV about Arab village - PMW Bulletins

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik


During the current month of Ramadan, official Palestinian Authority TV is broadcasting a series called Children of the Village Chief. The series portrays Arab life around the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and afterwards in a village in what was until the Six-Day War in 1967, the "West Bank" of the Kingdom of Jordan.

The poster of the series

The first program starts with the so-called Palestinian "Nakba" - the "catastrophe" of the creation of Israel - and continues until the 1980s. In the series, which deals primarily with daily life during this period, attitudes to Israel and Jews are likewise expressed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?

The always present conspiracy theory.

Why is Islamism still so tribal after all these centuries?

Deflection.

 

[member]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question goes unanswered (to your satisfaction) because it involves more than just a short sound bite answer that you want. There is no one single perspective that will satisfy what you want to hear, and still be both sound and valid.

My experience, from answering other less complex questions you have posed, that if your perspective is not the composite answer you want to hear, you play dumb, not able to understand that the world is not perfect and the politics that actually wins the day, is not always what you believe makes sense. Thus, no one wants to take the time to thoughtfully answer your question, only to get a non-responsive reply: "Deflection" (being the most common, with Israeli Talking Points no far behind).

The never answered question.
Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?

(COMMENT)

Yes, HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement, which is by Charter, a Jihadist Organization) won the election 74:132 or approximately 56% of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) seats.

​

Having said that, HAMAS and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are both terrorist organizations. That makes them very controversial. Especially when hostile organizations like HAMAS build their premise upon the notion that armed struggle (Jihad in the Covenant) is the only solution and that they are diametrically opposed to the decisions of the Allied Powers (50 to 100 years ago).

Needless to say, there are three positions a nation might take in response to the controversial notion that there is a legitimate right to resist state oppression.

◈ Capitualtion to Terrorisn
◈ Non-acknowledgement of Terrorism
◈ Combat Terrorism​

No actual International Law addresses the issue in depth. However, Customary (19 Counter-terrorism Conventions in Law) and International Humanitarian Laws like the Geneva Convention do criminalize violence in special conditions which adequately describe much of the activities employed by HAMAS, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, etc.

✪ Now I can just hear you say: Holy Deflection - Smokescreen, etc. (or my personal favorite: How does that answer my question)...​

The reason the answer is complex is that there is more than one vantage point. The US and Israel fall on the side that it opposes organizations (whether it is sponsored by the government or not) that either engage in activities that are prohibited by Customary and International Humanitarian Law. → THUS, would prefer not to see a state sponsor of terrorism, like HAMAS, emerge and thrive. So if HAMAS does not receive the cooperation in the transition of government into their hand → well, so be it. Countries, like the US, that support the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.

I know it is not the simplified answer you want to hear, but it is a valid viewpoint. Knowing that you would not appreciate that viewpoint, people in the discussion just choose not to respond and give Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters any credibility.

Any country that would elevate a person like Dalal al-Maghribi, famous for personally killing unarmed men, women, and children, to the status of hero or martyr, is a providing state support to terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?

The always present conspiracy theory.

Why is Islamism still so tribal after all these centuries?

Deflection.

I don’t entertain your conspiracy theories.