Gaza army

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This is a matter of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attacked, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jewish People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League.​

For the fifty years before 1948 the Zionists, by word and action, specifically stated that they were going to take Palestine for themselves. And you call that "defensive."

You must be an old government person.

You people think funny.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

And you think those assholes had the right to do that.

You must be an old government person.

You people think funny.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League.​

For the fifty years before 1948 the Zionists, by word and action, specifically stated that they were going to take Palestine for themselves. And you call that "defensive."

You must be an old government person.

You people think funny.

For 1200 years before 1948 the arab muslims mass murdered, enslaved, abused and mistreated the Jews and Christians throughout the Islamic lands. In 1921 they started a programme of attacks on Jewish enclaves that resulted in the formation of Jewish defence groups. Then in 1929 the grand mufti engineered the riots and massacres in Hebron . Then again in 1931 he engineered a civil war aimed at eliminating the Jews as he had stated he would. So the words and actions of the arab muslims show that they were hell bent on taking all the land for themselves and to hell with the LoN and UN.
You call firing illegal weapons at Israeli children defence along with planting high explosives under Israeli schools to mass murder children.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

No the birthplace of Christianity was in Rome, remember that Jesus was a Jew who followed the Jewish religion. But Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism and Jews had lived there for over 4,500 years compared to the arab muslims who infested the land on and off for less than 1400 years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and 'god-given land' claims

 

[Kondor3]

...Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?...

It does, if (a) the Christians have the desire to do so, (b) the Christians have the willpower to do so, (c) the Christians have the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually try it.

Then again, Christianity already has various sectarian cities such as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury and Worms and others - as well as owning the Western Hemisphere, half of Oceania, Europe and all of northern Asia. No need for Christians to be take-on another.

In that respect, Christianity is much like Islam - dominating in a decent-sized chunk of the world and either in-possession-of or with access-to most of its Primary Holy Places and a lot of secondary and tertiary ones.

Other than Israel-Jerusalem, the Jews don't have any.

And they decided to take theirs back, after getting their asses kicked in the middle of the 20th.

The have (a) the desire to do so, (b) the willpower to do so, (c) the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually tried it, and largely succeeded.

The universe continues to unfold as it should.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

No the birthplace of Christianity was in Rome, remember that Jesus was a Jew who followed the Jewish religion. But Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism and Jews had lived there for over 4,500 years compared to the arab muslims who infested the land on and off for less than 1400 years.

"Infested" trouble with you Pheo and your Zionist Cronies is that your entire existence is based on a False Pretence

 

[theliq]

...Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?...

It does, if (a) the Christians have the desire to do so, (b) the Christians have the willpower to do so, (c) the Christians have the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually try it.

Then again, Christianity already has various sectarian cities such as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury and Worms and others - as well as owning the Western Hemisphere, half of Oceania, Europe and all of northern Asia. No need for Christians to be take-on another.

In that respect, Christianity is much like Islam - dominating in a decent-sized chunk of the world and either in-possession-of or with access-to most of its Primary Holy Places and a lot of secondary and tertiary ones.

Other than Israel-Jerusalem, the Jews don't have any.

And they decided to take theirs back, after getting their asses kicked in the middle of the 20th.

The have (a) the desire to do so, (b) the willpower to do so, (c) the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually tried it, and largely succeeded.

The universe continues to unfold as it should.

Hardly the Universe Kondie,hardly think a tiny patch of land in the Holy Land,contitutes the Universe at all.........

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This is a matter of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attacked, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jewish People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco does it again..reinvents history in his own brains image..........there is a medical term for this...DELUSIONAL

 

[Phoenall]

Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and 'god-given land' claims

Only used by islamonazi's and their propagandist stooges. The Jews use the international laws of 1923 and 1949

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

No the birthplace of Christianity was in Rome, remember that Jesus was a Jew who followed the Jewish religion. But Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism and Jews had lived there for over 4,500 years compared to the arab muslims who infested the land on and off for less than 1400 years.

"Infested" trouble with you Pheo and your Zionist Cronies is that your entire existence is based on a False Pretence

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

 

[Phoenall]

...Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?...

It does, if (a) the Christians have the desire to do so, (b) the Christians have the willpower to do so, (c) the Christians have the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually try it.

Then again, Christianity already has various sectarian cities such as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury and Worms and others - as well as owning the Western Hemisphere, half of Oceania, Europe and all of northern Asia. No need for Christians to be take-on another.

In that respect, Christianity is much like Islam - dominating in a decent-sized chunk of the world and either in-possession-of or with access-to most of its Primary Holy Places and a lot of secondary and tertiary ones.

Other than Israel-Jerusalem, the Jews don't have any.

And they decided to take theirs back, after getting their asses kicked in the middle of the 20th.

The have (a) the desire to do so, (b) the willpower to do so, (c) the muscle to do so, and (d) they actually tried it, and largely succeeded.

The universe continues to unfold as it should.

Hardly the Universe Kondie,hardly think a tiny patch of land in the Holy Land,contitutes the Universe at all.........

Yet you obsess with it like some OCD sufferer does with having the bottles lined up just so.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This is a matter of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attacked, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jewish People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco does it again..reinvents history in his own brains image..........there is a medical term for this...DELUSIONAL

How about showing were he has reinvented history then and show the evidence of your fantasy history that has never existed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

It also said:

...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.​

Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.

The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.

The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

No the birthplace of Christianity was in Rome, remember that Jesus was a Jew who followed the Jewish religion. But Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism and Jews had lived there for over 4,500 years compared to the arab muslims who infested the land on and off for less than 1400 years.

"Infested" trouble with you Pheo and your Zionist Cronies is that your entire existence is based on a False Pretence

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes!

If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"​

That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.

(COMMENT)

Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This of accent; not shopping for answers.

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.

In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attack, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.

Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jew People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.

For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.​

Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity.

Does that mean that a bunch of Christians can go there, throw everybody out, and take the place for ourselves?

That's nuts.

No the birthplace of Christianity was in Rome, remember that Jesus was a Jew who followed the Jewish religion. But Palestine was the birthplace of Judaism and Jews had lived there for over 4,500 years compared to the arab muslims who infested the land on and off for less than 1400 years.

"Infested" trouble with you Pheo and your Zionist Cronies is that your entire existence is based on a False Pretence

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

Did it give it to the arab muslims, as I cant find it. But the Mandate of Palestine which passed into International law granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews for their national home. Then in 1949 the UN altered its charter to state that the UN would accept and fulfil the terms of the Balfour declaration, the Mandate of Palestine and the granting of gaza, west bank and the Golan heights. So why are you denying Israel and the Jews their human rights and rights under International law.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" is not unique to the Arab Palestinians; it is a basic (jus cogens) rule. It is a "higher law" which must be followed by all. It is a concept within international law that is a peremptory norm, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure that our friend "Phoenall" said what you implied.

I don't think it was said that "International law gave Palestine to;" but rather "International law is the only factor in." It is only a few words different, yet a huge difference in meaning.

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."

What false pretense would that be then moron as I maintain that INTERNATIONAL LAW is the only factor in the Jews claim to Palestine. The arab muslims use LIES and false testimony for your claim to palestine

International law gave Palestine to the Jews. Pffft. NOT!

(COMMENT)

Unquestionably, there are many thing to consider if an equitable settlement of grievances is to be derived.

I think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is going to find that they have, under political pressure, stepped into quick-sand and bog. And in time, they will want to extricate themselves. When we speak of International Law, we have to draw a timeline of events and determine what International Laws were applicable to what evens --- and the intent (specifically addressed) within the law. I don't think the court wants to extrapolate. I don't think the court has the authority to create new interpretation that have the effect of new law. This has very far reaching ramifications and entanglements; even unto the status of refugees (if, in fact there are any in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). I have the tendency to think that "if" the ICC takes-up the issue at hand (a decision they have not yet made) there may be a whole basket full of unintended consequences that the Arab Palestinians never foresaw; and may work against them. Of course the ICC will use, to the best of its ability, the limitation in jurisdiction to screen complications. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force (July 2002) of this Statute; it is 21st Century Law that is being applied to a conflict that started in the mid-20th Century. And the ICC will, in all probability, us the limitation that "the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted."

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that --- very consistently --- the argument has been that the Jewish State of Israel was created through the "right of self-determination."​

There are UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

Link please.

(COMMENT)

The LINK: Chapter I - Article 1(2) of the UN Charter (1945). This is the basic law cited in the Preamble of the Convention on Treaty Law, and in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) again in General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) "convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law;" and as a cornerstone in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed by the General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) (1966): "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."

• 
  "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

The idea that the "right of self-determination" would be denied to the Jewish People is absolutely absurd. What is even more absurd is the fact that the very same General Assembly Resolution that was invoked by the Palestinians to Declare Independence --- "the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947" [that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II)] was in the document the Jewish People used in the "Step Preparatory to Independence."

Most Respectfully,
R