- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
- Thread starter montelatici
- Start date
Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, Shusha, rt al,
(COMMENT)And they want “ Right of Return?”Hamas and Israel Are in a Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
A gradual shortening of time between skirmishes until a major conflict erupts is a pattern experienced all to well between the belligerents.
The reoccurrence rate is gradually becoming shorter; ≈ 5000 → ≈ 4000 → ≈ 3000 → below 2000 ≈ below 1000 days. However, the current rate of deterioration is currently on the rise. It has now been (depending on the perspective):
- From and including: Monday, June 5, 1967 (Six Day War) → To, but not including Saturday, October 6, 1973 ⇒ Result: 2315 days (Yom Kipper War)
- From and including: Saturday, October 6, 1973 (Yo, Kipper War) → To, but not including Wednesday, December 9, 1987 ⇒ Result: 5177 days (First Intifada)
- From and including: Wednesday, December 9, 1987 (First Intifada) → To, but not including Thursday, September 28, 2000 ⇒ Result: 4677 days (Second Intifada)
- From and including: Thursday, September 28, 2000 (Second Intafada) → To, but not including Saturday, December 27, 2008 ⇒ Result: 3012 days (Cast Lead)
From and including: Saturday, December 27, 2008 (Cast Lead) → To, but not including Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) ⇒ Result: 1418 days- From and including: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) → To, but not including Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) ⇒ Result: 571 days
What has changed? The on-going investigation by the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to incite the Israelis into another major border-crossing operation. The HoAP want to set the conditions such that the Israelis are viewed as the aggressor against an unarmed civilian gathering. The bait is out there but the Israelis are not biting.
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, September 7, 2018 (Present Day) ⇒ Result: 1552 days
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, March 30, 2018 (Right to Return March) ⇒ Result: 1391 days
(COMMENT)111The Palestinians are a nation of people who are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.The Palestinians are a nation of people who are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.Wait, what? Are you saying that basic, universal, inalienable rights belong to some peoples, but not to others? What is your criteria for that? Other than Jooooooos?!
The Jews are foreign colonial settlers.
Citizens of a territory? LOL!
Territories aren't nations. Palestine isn't a nation. Never has been.
At the rate the Palestinians are screwing up, if they ever become a nation, it will be the size of Lichtenstein.
1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’.
As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law. This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
The flaw here, of course, is that the term "Palestine," during that time period, was defined as the successor government entrusted to the British via the Mandate.
PARTI - PRELIMINARY Palestine Order in CouncilThe Treaty of Lausanne did not even mention "Palestine," let alone define the meaning of the Palestinian People. The language used was applicable to millions of former Turkish subjects habitually resident in a number of territories under varions mandates. It did not just apply to "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine.
Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
You sweepingly missed the point.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
You missed it too. You can't say what it was.Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, Shusha, rt al,
(COMMENT)And they want “ Right of Return?”Hamas and Israel Are in a Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
A gradual shortening of time between skirmishes until a major conflict erupts is a pattern experienced all to well between the belligerents.
The reoccurrence rate is gradually becoming shorter; ≈ 5000 → ≈ 4000 → ≈ 3000 → below 2000 ≈ below 1000 days. However, the current rate of deterioration is currently on the rise. It has now been (depending on the perspective):
- From and including: Monday, June 5, 1967 (Six Day War) → To, but not including Saturday, October 6, 1973 ⇒ Result: 2315 days (Yom Kipper War)
- From and including: Saturday, October 6, 1973 (Yo, Kipper War) → To, but not including Wednesday, December 9, 1987 ⇒ Result: 5177 days (First Intifada)
- From and including: Wednesday, December 9, 1987 (First Intifada) → To, but not including Thursday, September 28, 2000 ⇒ Result: 4677 days (Second Intifada)
- From and including: Thursday, September 28, 2000 (Second Intafada) → To, but not including Saturday, December 27, 2008 ⇒ Result: 3012 days (Cast Lead)
From and including: Saturday, December 27, 2008 (Cast Lead) → To, but not including Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) ⇒ Result: 1418 days- From and including: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) → To, but not including Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) ⇒ Result: 571 days
What has changed? The on-going investigation by the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to incite the Israelis into another major border-crossing operation. The HoAP want to set the conditions such that the Israelis are viewed as the aggressor against an unarmed civilian gathering. The bait is out there but the Israelis are not biting.
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, September 7, 2018 (Present Day) ⇒ Result: 1552 days
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, March 30, 2018 (Right to Return March) ⇒ Result: 1391 days
(COMMENT)111The Palestinians are a nation of people who are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.The Palestinians are a nation of people who are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
The Jews are foreign colonial settlers.
Citizens of a territory? LOL!
Territories aren't nations. Palestine isn't a nation. Never has been.
At the rate the Palestinians are screwing up, if they ever become a nation, it will be the size of Lichtenstein.
1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’.
As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law. This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
The flaw here, of course, is that the term "Palestine," during that time period, was defined as the successor government entrusted to the British via the Mandate.
PARTI - PRELIMINARY Palestine Order in CouncilThe Treaty of Lausanne did not even mention "Palestine," let alone define the meaning of the Palestinian People. The language used was applicable to millions of former Turkish subjects habitually resident in a number of territories under varions mandates. It did not just apply to "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine.
Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
You sweepingly missed the point.
You missed it too. You can't say what it was.Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ ILOVEISRAEL, P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, Shusha, rt al,
(COMMENT)And they want “ Right of Return?”Hamas and Israel Are in a Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
A gradual shortening of time between skirmishes until a major conflict erupts is a pattern experienced all to well between the belligerents.
The reoccurrence rate is gradually becoming shorter; ≈ 5000 → ≈ 4000 → ≈ 3000 → below 2000 ≈ below 1000 days. However, the current rate of deterioration is currently on the rise. It has now been (depending on the perspective):
- From and including: Monday, June 5, 1967 (Six Day War) → To, but not including Saturday, October 6, 1973 ⇒ Result: 2315 days (Yom Kipper War)
- From and including: Saturday, October 6, 1973 (Yo, Kipper War) → To, but not including Wednesday, December 9, 1987 ⇒ Result: 5177 days (First Intifada)
- From and including: Wednesday, December 9, 1987 (First Intifada) → To, but not including Thursday, September 28, 2000 ⇒ Result: 4677 days (Second Intifada)
- From and including: Thursday, September 28, 2000 (Second Intafada) → To, but not including Saturday, December 27, 2008 ⇒ Result: 3012 days (Cast Lead)
From and including: Saturday, December 27, 2008 (Cast Lead) → To, but not including Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) ⇒ Result: 1418 days- From and including: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 (Pillar Defense) → To, but not including Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) ⇒ Result: 571 days
What has changed? The on-going investigation by the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are attempting to incite the Israelis into another major border-crossing operation. The HoAP want to set the conditions such that the Israelis are viewed as the aggressor against an unarmed civilian gathering. The bait is out there but the Israelis are not biting.
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, September 7, 2018 (Present Day) ⇒ Result: 1552 days
✪ From and including: Sunday, June 8, 2014 (Protective Edge) → To, but not including Friday, March 30, 2018 (Right to Return March) ⇒ Result: 1391 days
(COMMENT)111The Palestinians are a nation of people who are citizens of a territory defined by international borders.
Citizens of a territory? LOL!
Territories aren't nations. Palestine isn't a nation. Never has been.
At the rate the Palestinians are screwing up, if they ever become a nation, it will be the size of Lichtenstein.
1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens. This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’.
As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law. This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
The flaw here, of course, is that the term "Palestine," during that time period, was defined as the successor government entrusted to the British via the Mandate.
PARTI - PRELIMINARY Palestine Order in CouncilThe Treaty of Lausanne did not even mention "Palestine," let alone define the meaning of the Palestinian People. The language used was applicable to millions of former Turkish subjects habitually resident in a number of territories under varions mandates. It did not just apply to "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine.
Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
You sweepingly missed the point.
I did say what it was. You sweepingly missed the point, again.
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, again with the "deflection" shtick.
In the first case (please read the headline), the question is:
Your mistake is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), through a series of calculated actions set the condition for a dramatic increase in the intensity of the violence.
The second case deals with the twin implications:
• The first issue brought forward by this insistence you have that (somehow) the "citizenship" and "nationality" clarification satisfies the transfer of territorial sovereignty (to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) and implied independence (of the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) established in the area clearly brought under the Mandate for Palestine.
• The second issue is that the Treaty, the Mandate, and the Orders (In Council, Election, and Citizenship) establish an obligation between the Allied Powers and the HoAP (or Israel for that matter). Well, the HoAP is not a party to the Treaty and are not directly addressed by the Mandate, orders the Orders. Any "rights" you infer from these principle documents present (what are called) negative rights which DO NOT subject or oblige Israel to an action (not being a party to these arrangements) but rather permit unresponsiveness or inaction. "Any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements."
Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty. The consensual agreement over the territories of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank were treaties Israel made with the States of Egypt and Jordan. These agreements were made before the A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 in which the UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, again with the "deflection" shtick.
(COMMENT* RELEVANCE)Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?
In the first case (please read the headline), the question is:
• Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
Your mistake is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), through a series of calculated actions set the condition for a dramatic increase in the intensity of the violence.
- It is NOT a cycle → in that it is (clearly) aperiodic.
- It is NOT a "miscalculation" but a series of "intentional actions" by the HoAP to incite an escalation in the Israeli response.
The second case deals with the twin implications:
• The first issue brought forward by this insistence you have that (somehow) the "citizenship" and "nationality" clarification satisfies the transfer of territorial sovereignty (to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) and implied independence (of the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) established in the area clearly brought under the Mandate for Palestine.
• The second issue is that the Treaty, the Mandate, and the Orders (In Council, Election, and Citizenship) establish an obligation between the Allied Powers and the HoAP (or Israel for that matter). Well, the HoAP is not a party to the Treaty and are not directly addressed by the Mandate, orders the Orders. Any "rights" you infer from these principle documents present (what are called) negative rights which DO NOT subject or oblige Israel to an action (not being a party to these arrangements) but rather permit unresponsiveness or inaction. "Any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements."
Aeon J. Skoble said:{Link to Video}
Professor Aeon Skoble describes the difference between positive and negative rights. Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.
Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty. The consensual agreement over the territories of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank were treaties Israel made with the States of Egypt and Jordan. These agreements were made before the A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 in which the UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, again with the "deflection" shtick.
(COMMENT* RELEVANCE)Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?
In the first case (please read the headline), the question is:
• Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
Your mistake is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), through a series of calculated actions set the condition for a dramatic increase in the intensity of the violence.
(COMMENT** RELEVANCE)
- It is NOT a cycle → in that it is (clearly) aperiodic.
- It is NOT a "miscalculation" but a series of "intentional actions" by the HoAP to incite an escalation in the Israeli response.
The second case deals with the twin implications:
• The first issue brought forward by this insistence you have that (somehow) the "citizenship" and "nationality" clarification satisfies the transfer of territorial sovereignty (to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) and implied independence (of the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) established in the area clearly brought under the Mandate for Palestine.
• The second issue is that the Treaty, the Mandate, and the Orders (In Council, Election, and Citizenship) establish an obligation between the Allied Powers and the HoAP (or Israel for that matter). Well, the HoAP is not a party to the Treaty and are not directly addressed by the Mandate, orders the Orders. Any "rights" you infer from these principle documents present (what are called) negative rights which DO NOT subject or oblige Israel to an action (not being a party to these arrangements) but rather permit unresponsiveness or inaction. "Any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements."
Aeon J. Skoble said:{Link to Video}
Professor Aeon Skoble describes the difference between positive and negative rights. Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.
Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty. The consensual agreement over the territories of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank were treaties Israel made with the States of Egypt and Jordan. These agreements were made before the A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 in which the UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never asked for anything.Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty.
Why do you post all of this irrelevant stuff?
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, again with the "deflection" shtick.
(COMMENT* RELEVANCE)Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?
In the first case (please read the headline), the question is:
• Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
Your mistake is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), through a series of calculated actions set the condition for a dramatic increase in the intensity of the violence.
(COMMENT** RELEVANCE)
- It is NOT a cycle → in that it is (clearly) aperiodic.
- It is NOT a "miscalculation" but a series of "intentional actions" by the HoAP to incite an escalation in the Israeli response.
The second case deals with the twin implications:
• The first issue brought forward by this insistence you have that (somehow) the "citizenship" and "nationality" clarification satisfies the transfer of territorial sovereignty (to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) and implied independence (of the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) established in the area clearly brought under the Mandate for Palestine.
• The second issue is that the Treaty, the Mandate, and the Orders (In Council, Election, and Citizenship) establish an obligation between the Allied Powers and the HoAP (or Israel for that matter). Well, the HoAP is not a party to the Treaty and are not directly addressed by the Mandate, orders the Orders. Any "rights" you infer from these principle documents present (what are called) negative rights which DO NOT subject or oblige Israel to an action (not being a party to these arrangements) but rather permit unresponsiveness or inaction. "Any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements."
Aeon J. Skoble said:{Link to Video}
Professor Aeon Skoble describes the difference between positive and negative rights. Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.
Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty. The consensual agreement over the territories of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank were treaties Israel made with the States of Egypt and Jordan. These agreements were made before the A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 in which the UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians never asked for anything.Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty.
Why do you post all of this irrelevant stuff?
The Palestinians never asked for anything.
They don't want the land from the river to the sea?
- Feb 22, 2012
- 9,532
- 2,792
- 160
RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, again with the "deflection" shtick.
(COMMENT* RELEVANCE)Nice deflection. Where is the relevance?
In the first case (please read the headline), the question is:
• Perilous Cycle. Is War a Miscalculation Away?
Your mistake is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), through a series of calculated actions set the condition for a dramatic increase in the intensity of the violence.
(COMMENT** RELEVANCE)
- It is NOT a cycle → in that it is (clearly) aperiodic.
- It is NOT a "miscalculation" but a series of "intentional actions" by the HoAP to incite an escalation in the Israeli response.
The second case deals with the twin implications:
• The first issue brought forward by this insistence you have that (somehow) the "citizenship" and "nationality" clarification satisfies the transfer of territorial sovereignty (to the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) and implied independence (of the Arab Palestinian inhabitance) established in the area clearly brought under the Mandate for Palestine.
• The second issue is that the Treaty, the Mandate, and the Orders (In Council, Election, and Citizenship) establish an obligation between the Allied Powers and the HoAP (or Israel for that matter). Well, the HoAP is not a party to the Treaty and are not directly addressed by the Mandate, orders the Orders. Any "rights" you infer from these principle documents present (what are called) negative rights which DO NOT subject or oblige Israel to an action (not being a party to these arrangements) but rather permit unresponsiveness or inaction. "Any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements."
Aeon J. Skoble said:{Link to Video}
Professor Aeon Skoble describes the difference between positive and negative rights. Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.
Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty. The consensual agreement over the territories of the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the West Bank were treaties Israel made with the States of Egypt and Jordan. These agreements were made before the A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 in which the UN Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Most Respectfully,
RThe Palestinians never asked for anything.Israel IS NOT required or obligated to provide the Arab Palestinians with either territory or sovereignty.
Why do you post all of this irrelevant stuff?
The Palestinians never asked for anything.
They don't want the land from the river to the sea?
What they want is the eradication of Israel. They are not going to get it.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Leaked Clips from Censored Documentary on Israel Lobby Reveal Attacks on US Activists
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Netanyahu ally: Israel is not an apartheid state
- Feb 22, 2012
- 9,532
- 2,792
- 160
Netanyahu ally: Israel is not an apartheid state
Yawn.,,, So what if it is? You don’t have a problem with “ Palestine” and their No Israelis Allowed “ Mentality . Typical Pro Pal Double Standard Mentality.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Bloody Friday as Gaza marks six months of protests
Friday marked what Gaza’s health ministry described as the single bloodiest day of the Great March of Return protests since 14 May, when Israeli occupation forces fatally injured more than 60 Palestinians.
Seven Palestinians, including two children, were slain on Friday, two days shy of the six-month anniversary of the protest launch.
The two children were identified as Nasir Azmi Musbah, 11, shot in the head east of Khan Younis, and Muhammad Nayif Yusif al-Hawm, 14, shot in the chest east of Bureij.
Bloody Friday as Gaza marks six months of protests
Friday marked what Gaza’s health ministry described as the single bloodiest day of the Great March of Return protests since 14 May, when Israeli occupation forces fatally injured more than 60 Palestinians.
Seven Palestinians, including two children, were slain on Friday, two days shy of the six-month anniversary of the protest launch.
The two children were identified as Nasir Azmi Musbah, 11, shot in the head east of Khan Younis, and Muhammad Nayif Yusif al-Hawm, 14, shot in the chest east of Bureij.
Bloody Friday as Gaza marks six months of protests
- Feb 22, 2012
- 9,532
- 2,792
- 160
#Live from front of the united nations mass demonstrations of Jews in protest against Netanyahu's visit and that Israel does not represent them and claim to. The Jewish state
You should be the opening act for the JEWISH Comedian Jackie Mason !
I am beginning to think that you HONESTLY don’t have the ABILITY to understand that they are protesting ONLY because they don’t believe in a JEWISH STATE until the Messiah comes.
You have the CHUTZPAH to talk about Israel’s fault there isn’t a “ Two State Solution?” It’s obvious that YOU don’t want it.
You HONESTLY don’t have the ability to understand that according to the U.N. “ Right of Return” ( That will never happen) is based one one thing ; “. Live in Peace with Your Neighbors” Get it? Of course not. Keep posting
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Bloody Friday as Gaza marks six months of protests
Friday marked what Gaza’s health ministry described as the single bloodiest day of the Great March of Return protests since 14 May, when Israeli occupation forces fatally injured more than 60 Palestinians.
Seven Palestinians, including two children, were slain on Friday, two days shy of the six-month anniversary of the protest launch.
The two children were identified as Nasir Azmi Musbah, 11, shot in the head east of Khan Younis, and Muhammad Nayif Yusif al-Hawm, 14, shot in the chest east of Bureij.
Bloody Friday as Gaza marks six months of protests
It seems the border gee-had is just another fail.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
- Feb 22, 2012
- 9,532
- 2,792
- 160
Not in danger from the incoming Rockets? Have you contacted Jackie Mason yet??
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
A New Wave of Democrats Tests the Party’s Blanket Support for Israel
WASHINGTON — One Democratic House candidate has pledged that she will vote against bills that include aid to Israel, denouncing what she saw as the “injustice” of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Another wrote that “Israel has hypnotized the world” with its “evil doings.”
Still another helped write a scathing book on relations between the United States and Israel, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive political star expected to win a House seat in New York, condemned the “occupation of Palestine.”
A New Wave of Democrats Tests the Party’s Blanket Support for Israel
WASHINGTON — One Democratic House candidate has pledged that she will vote against bills that include aid to Israel, denouncing what she saw as the “injustice” of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Another wrote that “Israel has hypnotized the world” with its “evil doings.”
Still another helped write a scathing book on relations between the United States and Israel, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive political star expected to win a House seat in New York, condemned the “occupation of Palestine.”
A New Wave of Democrats Tests the Party’s Blanket Support for Israel
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,819
- 4,173
- 1,815
Firm Linked to Israeli Intelligence Ran Pro-Trump Propaganda During Presidential Election
Rick Gates, the former deputy chairman of the Trump Campaign was allegedly in contact with an Israeli intelligence firm about a social-media disinformation campaign.
Rick Gates, the former deputy chairman of the Trump Campaign was allegedly in contact with an Israeli intelligence firm about a social-media disinformation campaign.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 127K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- Locked
- Replies
- 10K
- Views
- 360K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 1K
C
- Replies
- 243
- Views
- 17K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 17
- Replies
- 570
- Views
- 6K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-