Arab animals massacred Jews way before 1948

[Saigon]

No where does it talk about enormous differences. People build over their property all the time - and does war break out?

And for the third time now - I don't consider Palestine ca. 1930 and Detroit ca. 2012 to be a valid comparison, and neither do you.

We are not talking a foot over a fenceline here - we are talking several hundred metres of land "annexed", including in some cases water sources.

Few in number? Every pro-arab poster here like to mention how the minority jews were VASTLY outnumbered in the mandate by several times.

Yes, Jews were vastly outnumbered nationwide, but not in all areas at all times. This is fairly simple stuff to get your head around if you actually try and put the politics to one side and consider the issue with an open mind.

The finger of Galilee area was swampy land, some distance from the major Palestinian population centres of Akko, Nazareth or Nalbus (to the west, south-west and south-east respectively). Some Palestinians lived in the area, but not many.

Obviously Jewish settlers chose land they knew was not densely populated. Land titles were not always clear, and no doubt in some cases it was not clear who owned what. I'm sure Jewish settlers sometimes bought land in good faith from people who had no right to sell it as well.

But it's fairly clear why Palestinians felt aggrieved - certainly all the Israelis on my kibbutz understood it, and felt some sympathy for Palestinians concerning the way the kibbutz had been settled.

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

 

[Saigon]

Had the arabs not attacked jews from the early 1900s forward, there would probably have never even been a movement to form militias, or create a sovereign state.
.

Again, Irgun was started as a militant wing with an offensive mandate and capability, to attack particularly British targets utilising terror tactics.

 

[Roudy]

Had the arabs not attacked jews from the early 1900s forward, there would probably have never even been a movement to form militias, or create a sovereign state.
.

Again, Irgun was started as a militant wing with an offensive mandate and capability, to attack particularly British targets utilising terror tactics.

Well at least you admit the land was controlled by the British and not the Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No where does it talk about enormous differences. People build over their property all the time - and does war break out?

And for the third time now - I don't consider Palestine ca. 1930 and Detroit ca. 2012 to be a valid comparison, and neither do you.

We are not talking a foot over a fenceline here - we are talking several hundred metres of land "annexed", including in some cases water sources.

Few in number? Every pro-arab poster here like to mention how the minority jews were VASTLY outnumbered in the mandate by several times.

Yes, Jews were vastly outnumbered nationwide, but not in all areas at all times. This is fairly simple stuff to get your head around if you actually try and put the politics to one side and consider the issue with an open mind.

The finger of Galilee area was swampy land, some distance from the major Palestinian population centres of Akko, Nazareth or Nalbus (to the west, south-west and south-east respectively). Some Palestinians lived in the area, but not many.

Obviously Jewish settlers chose land they knew was not densely populated. Land titles were not always clear, and no doubt in some cases it was not clear who owned what. I'm sure Jewish settlers sometimes bought land in good faith from people who had no right to sell it as well.

But it's fairly clear why Palestinians felt aggrieved - certainly all the Israelis on my kibbutz understood it, and felt some sympathy for Palestinians concerning the way the kibbutz had been settled.

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

That was a major problem. Britain, under the mandate, was responsible to secure the rights of the inhabitants. Instead, The inhabitants were ignored and shoved aside violating their right to self determination.

 

[Roudy]

No where does it talk about enormous differences. People build over their property all the time - and does war break out?

And for the third time now - I don't consider Palestine ca. 1930 and Detroit ca. 2012 to be a valid comparison, and neither do you.

We are not talking a foot over a fenceline here - we are talking several hundred metres of land "annexed", including in some cases water sources.



Yes, Jews were vastly outnumbered nationwide, but not in all areas at all times. This is fairly simple stuff to get your head around if you actually try and put the politics to one side and consider the issue with an open mind.

The finger of Galilee area was swampy land, some distance from the major Palestinian population centres of Akko, Nazareth or Nalbus (to the west, south-west and south-east respectively). Some Palestinians lived in the area, but not many.

Obviously Jewish settlers chose land they knew was not densely populated. Land titles were not always clear, and no doubt in some cases it was not clear who owned what. I'm sure Jewish settlers sometimes bought land in good faith from people who had no right to sell it as well.

But it's fairly clear why Palestinians felt aggrieved - certainly all the Israelis on my kibbutz understood it, and felt some sympathy for Palestinians concerning the way the kibbutz had been settled.

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

That was a major problem. Britain, under the mandate, was responsible to secure the rights of the inhabitants. Instead, The inhabitants were ignored and shoved aside violating their right to self determination.

Yes, the British made the Arabs go around massacring Jews. it seems Muslims need very little provocation to start a massacre. One false rumor and there's 100's of people dead with blood all over the streets.

 

[NeoTemplar]

The fight between Jews and Muslims was going on before 650 B.C. so how is this news?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And for the third time now - I don't consider Palestine ca. 1930 and Detroit ca. 2012 to be a valid comparison, and neither do you.

We are not talking a foot over a fenceline here - we are talking several hundred metres of land "annexed", including in some cases water sources.



Yes, Jews were vastly outnumbered nationwide, but not in all areas at all times. This is fairly simple stuff to get your head around if you actually try and put the politics to one side and consider the issue with an open mind.

The finger of Galilee area was swampy land, some distance from the major Palestinian population centres of Akko, Nazareth or Nalbus (to the west, south-west and south-east respectively). Some Palestinians lived in the area, but not many.

Obviously Jewish settlers chose land they knew was not densely populated. Land titles were not always clear, and no doubt in some cases it was not clear who owned what. I'm sure Jewish settlers sometimes bought land in good faith from people who had no right to sell it as well.

But it's fairly clear why Palestinians felt aggrieved - certainly all the Israelis on my kibbutz understood it, and felt some sympathy for Palestinians concerning the way the kibbutz had been settled.

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

Mediation or legal action is a nice idea - but to whom would the Palestinians have protested?

That was a major problem. Britain, under the mandate, was responsible to secure the rights of the inhabitants. Instead, The inhabitants were ignored and shoved aside violating their right to self determination.

Yes, the British made the Arabs go around massacring Jews. it seems Muslims need very little provocation to start a massacre. One false rumor and there's 100's of people dead with blood all over the streets.

The violations of Palestinian rights by the British set the stage for the conflict.

 

[Saigon]

Had the arabs not attacked jews from the early 1900s forward, there would probably have never even been a movement to form militias, or create a sovereign state.
.

Again, Irgun was started as a militant wing with an offensive mandate and capability, to attack particularly British targets utilising terror tactics.

Well at least you admit the land was controlled by the British and not the Arabs.

What land do you mean?

Please be specific, and name actual towns.

 

[Hossfly]

Again, Irgun was started as a militant wing with an offensive mandate and capability, to attack particularly British targets utilising terror tactics.

Well at least you admit the land was controlled by the British and not the Arabs.

What land do you mean?

Please be specific, and name actual towns.

Roudy wasn't talking about Podunk,Tunisia. You know which towns and which land.

 

[SAYIT]

In fact, there have been many complaints, mostly by the international Islamist/Nazi/Leftist cabal, bemoaning the fact that their comrades-in-arms now have a much more difficult time slaughtering Israel's Bubbies and babies as they eat pizza and sip lemonade. As for its legal status, I'd say the fence's effectiveness has rendered that and the complaints moot issues.

Any links to that, Sayit?

btw. Legality is never a moot issue. Not in Palestine, not in Kashmir, not anywhere.

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

 

[P F Tinmore]

In fact, there have been many complaints, mostly by the international Islamist/Nazi/Leftist cabal, bemoaning the fact that their comrades-in-arms now have a much more difficult time slaughtering Israel's Bubbies and babies as they eat pizza and sip lemonade. As for its legal status, I'd say the fence's effectiveness has rendered that and the complaints moot issues.

Any links to that, Sayit?

btw. Legality is never a moot issue. Not in Palestine, not in Kashmir, not anywhere.

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

Actually enforcing the law would end the conflict.

 

[Jos]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

The wall and the check points have killed many Palestinians, but then you dont consider them, do you?

 

[Roudy]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

The wall and the check points have killed many Palestinians, but then you dont consider them, do you?

The wal prevents the animals from sending suicide bombers into Israel. That must really kill them.

 

[Roudy]

That was a major problem. Britain, under the mandate, was responsible to secure the rights of the inhabitants. Instead, The inhabitants were ignored and shoved aside violating their right to self determination.

Yes, the British made the Arabs go around massacring Jews. it seems Muslims need very little provocation to start a massacre. One false rumor and there's 100's of people dead with blood all over the streets.

The violations of Palestinian rights by the British set the stage for the conflict.

The violations by the British set the stage for Arab animal's to go around massacring innocent Jews in ancient towns like Hebron? Wow, that really makes sense, only if you're insane that is. Ha ha ha!

 

[Roudy]

The fight between Jews and Muslims was going on before 650 B.C. so how is this news?

Actually it's the fight between Muslims and Christians, and the Jews are stuck in the Middle, always. Jerusalem being the big "prize" of this tournament that has been going on for centuries.

 

[Saigon]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

No, I don't.

I agree that the barrier has saved lives - but it would also have saved lives had it been built a long the legal border.

If the US wishes to build a wall to protect itself from Mexicans, it doesn't build it at Oaxaca.

 

[Saigon]

Well at least you admit the land was controlled by the British and not the Arabs.

What land do you mean?

Please be specific, and name actual towns.

Roudy wasn't talking about Podunk,Tunisia. You know which towns and which land.

I have no idea which towns or land Roudy was referring to - and neither does he, because he has never heard of most of the towns involved.

Do you really think Roudy would know where Magdal Shams or Shebaa Farms are?

Of course he wouldn't.

 

[Saigon]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

The wall and the check points have killed many Palestinians, but then you dont consider them, do you?

That's a very good point.

 

[Roudy]

Saving lives always trumps legal wrangling and the barrier has saved lives. Don't you agree?

The wall and the check points have killed many Palestinians, but then you dont consider them, do you?

That's a very good point.

A point based on lies. If it walks, talks, and smells like a terrorist lover then guess what? It's Fatima Saigoon.

 

[Saigon]

Roudy -

No, it isn't a lie. Tinmore just knows more about the Palestinian aspect of this conflict than you do - as I'm sure you realise yourself.

As for my "supporting terror" - it's impossible for me to know if you really are so stupid that you can not understand what my politics are, or if you just simply have to lie about them because you can't debate.

Either way - this doesn't make you look smart.