End the Occupation

"simply bullshit denial of reality" wasn't clear enough?
 
And don't you dare "Khazar" me. You are smarter than that.
 
AND, most importantly, none of this matters. The Jewish people are a people. The Jewish people originated on the territory in question. The Jewish people's history, both political and religious, was created on that land. There was an expulsion and a long absence. The Jewish people are exercising their legal right to RECONSTITUTE their National Homeland Only the Jewish people gets to choose who is and who is not part of the Jewish people. The Temple Mount IS the holiest place in Judaism and the center of worship for the Jewish people.

Stop with the ridiculous disenfranchisement of the Jewish people.
 
et al,
WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.







Any different to the laws inposed on the Jews in the rest of the M.E. at the point of a gun, what goeas around comes around

Yep the arab league as the legal land owners handed the rights to the Jews

Yep again the arab league, who were beaten soundly by farmers.

Anymore propaganda you want to see destroyed
 
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.

And you think the Diaspora isn't considered a violation of their rights by the Jewish people?

You don't think the expulsion of the Jewish people from their land by foreign invaders is a violation of their rights?
OK, but few if any Jews "returning" to Israel have any ancestors who were expelled from that area.







And you can prove this how, apart from DNA testing of everyone which will show the arab muslims to be from outside the area
 
OK, but few if any Jews "returning" to Israel have any ancestors who were expelled from that area.

First and foremost that is not true. It is simply bullshit denial of reality. But even more its a bullshit denial of reality intended to disenfranchise the Jewish people from their history.

The desire for self-determination of a group is not based on individual's DNA. Its based on people's association with that group, their sense of belonging, their being part of that group's story.

And not one of us who consider ourselves as part of the Jewish people came to be in this place because we have the "right" or the "wrong" DNA. We came to be in this place because we know that we belong here. And because we were accepted here. We ARE part of the Jewish story. Part of self-determination is self-identification.

By making the response that you did -- you deny our rights, you deny our Diaspora, you deny our narrative and you tell us that our story, our group, our rights, our history, our belonging DO NOT MATTER.

And I'm telling you that it does matter. And no one, NO ONE, has a right to tell us who does and who does not belong to the Jewish people. The only people who get to decide that are the Jewish people.
Are you trying to say that my post is not true?







YES and as usual a PACK OF LIES based on islamonazi propaganda
 
AND, most importantly, none of this matters. The Jewish people are a people. The Jewish people originated on the territory in question. The Jewish people's history, both political and religious, was created on that land. There was an expulsion and a long absence. The Jewish people are exercising their legal right to RECONSTITUTE their National Homeland Only the Jewish people gets to choose who is and who is not part of the Jewish people. The Temple Mount IS the holiest place in Judaism and the center of worship for the Jewish people.

Stop with the ridiculous disenfranchisement of the Jewish people.
 
et al,
WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.


I think many historians, such as Benny Morris, are more believable than Ilan Pappe.

The Liar as Hero
 
et al,
WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.


I think many historians, such as Benny Morris, are more believable than Ilan Pappe.

The Liar as Hero

What did he say that is not true?
 
:itsok:
et al,
WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.


I think many historians, such as Benny Morris, are more believable than Ilan Pappe.

The Liar as Hero

What did he say that is not true?


:itsok:
 
AND, most importantly, none of this matters. The Jewish people are a people. The Jewish people originated on the territory in question. The Jewish people's history, both political and religious, was created on that land. There was an expulsion and a long absence. The Jewish people are exercising their legal right to RECONSTITUTE their National Homeland Only the Jewish people gets to choose who is and who is not part of the Jewish people. The Temple Mount IS the holiest place in Judaism and the center of worship for the Jewish people.

Stop with the ridiculous disenfranchisement of the Jewish people.


Well that was interesting.

Let's go over some of the arguments he presented, shall we?

1. That is is wrong that a people can be expelled from a place and never allowed to return.

Now, you can either agree with the right of return as a concept or you can not. But what you can't do (fairly) is to suggest that ONE people has a right of return and another people does not. If you want to make the claim that it is wrong for a people to be expelled from a place and never allowed to return -- then you MUST include the Jewish people.

2. That it is wrong to grants rights to outsiders while excluding rights to those who were born in that place.

Again, you can either agree with this or disagree -- but either way you must apply it equally to ALL peoples. If you want to make the claim that people who were born in that place have rights to continue to live in that place --then you MUST include the Jewish people who were born there.

3. Going back to the origins of this discussion between you and I -- That foreign invaders (and their progeny) have no rights to the land.

Still, you can either agree with this or disagree with this concept. But you still have to apply it equally. If two families moved from a foreign place to the land at the same time -- you MUST not consider only the one family an "invader" based on their culture, ethnicity or religion. AND you MUST not require only the one family to be removed from the place. If you believe foreign invaders should be permitted to stay in the land -- then you MUST apply it to the Jewish people as well. (Though keep in mind that my argument is that the Jewish people are returnees and not foreign invaders).

You simply can't have two different sets of rules.
 
AND, most importantly, none of this matters. The Jewish people are a people. The Jewish people originated on the territory in question. The Jewish people's history, both political and religious, was created on that land. There was an expulsion and a long absence. The Jewish people are exercising their legal right to RECONSTITUTE their National Homeland Only the Jewish people gets to choose who is and who is not part of the Jewish people. The Temple Mount IS the holiest place in Judaism and the center of worship for the Jewish people.

Stop with the ridiculous disenfranchisement of the Jewish people.








All this proves is that you trawl the hate sites looking for anything that will demonise the Jews. This POS has been shown the door by everyone because he is a proven islamonazi Jew hater that should be in a cell for the rest of his life. Do you agree with his sentiments, is that why you posted this video, making you a POS islamonazi Jew hater that should be in the next cell to him
 
et al,
WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R
We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.


I think many historians, such as Benny Morris, are more believable than Ilan Pappe.

The Liar as Hero

What did he say that is not true?








Everything as it is based on islamonazi propaganda and LIES
 
AND, most importantly, none of this matters. The Jewish people are a people. The Jewish people originated on the territory in question. The Jewish people's history, both political and religious, was created on that land. There was an expulsion and a long absence. The Jewish people are exercising their legal right to RECONSTITUTE their National Homeland Only the Jewish people gets to choose who is and who is not part of the Jewish people. The Temple Mount IS the holiest place in Judaism and the center of worship for the Jewish people.

Stop with the ridiculous disenfranchisement of the Jewish people.


Well that was interesting.

Let's go over some of the arguments he presented, shall we?

1. That is is wrong that a people can be expelled from a place and never allowed to return.

Now, you can either agree with the right of return as a concept or you can not. But what you can't do (fairly) is to suggest that ONE people has a right of return and another people does not. If you want to make the claim that it is wrong for a people to be expelled from a place and never allowed to return -- then you MUST include the Jewish people.

2. That it is wrong to grants rights to outsiders while excluding rights to those who were born in that place.

Again, you can either agree with this or disagree -- but either way you must apply it equally to ALL peoples. If you want to make the claim that people who were born in that place have rights to continue to live in that place --then you MUST include the Jewish people who were born there.

3. Going back to the origins of this discussion between you and I -- That foreign invaders (and their progeny) have no rights to the land.

Still, you can either agree with this or disagree with this concept. But you still have to apply it equally. If two families moved from a foreign place to the land at the same time -- you MUST not consider only the one family an "invader" based on their culture, ethnicity or religion. AND you MUST not require only the one family to be removed from the place. If you believe foreign invaders should be permitted to stay in the land -- then you MUST apply it to the Jewish people as well. (Though keep in mind that my argument is that the Jewish people are returnees and not foreign invaders).

You simply can't have two different sets of rules.








Tinny does not do logic, he does islamonazi propaganda that says the muslims are always right and the Jews are always wrong
 

Forum List

Back
Top