Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference

[sealadaigh]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."


(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

 

[Ropey]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

Ok, so clearly nothing means anything unless it follows your logic. Good that you have no power but some words on a forum. The others who are dealing with these issues are like so far past where you find yourself.

And we rush headlong into a Sunni/Shia schism that will make the I/P issue as if it was mere flickering of candles with regards to the deaths.

Already over 100,000 and counting in Syria and I see so little about it.

Enlightenment is the ability to see what is happening in the world and being able to remain calm and logically objective with the realization that the movements of the world are multi-generational.

Do you not feel the pain in Syria? Do you not feel the pain in the territories?

Why do you remove yourself from one and not the other?

An enlightened person can. Regardless if they agree, they accept the enlightened premise.

 

[sealadaigh]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.


(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.


(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gsqBEPSrd0]Janis Joplin - Try (just a little bit harder) - YouTube[/ame]

naw. i'm tried out. give me a good reason.

why should i believe that the establishment of a religious state by a people foreign to the region where that state is established and resulting in the expulsion of the indigenous population...why is that a good thing.

would you accept it for other beliefs? i wouldn't, and i do not accept israel for that reason.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't agree with your analogy.

So if a gang staged a home invasion into your house and took up residence.

And forced your family to live in the garage.

You wouldn't fight back to regain your home and all of your possessions no matter how long it took?

You would just cooperate with the gang and refuse to use any sort of force??

Give me a break........

(COMMENT)

This is more analogous to you living in the unincorporated portion of the "county." Along comes the nearby "City" and legally annexes your portion of the "county."

Bad analogy......

A better fitting analogy would be; if a foreign entity like China came and annexed your portion of the county.

Would you be agreeable with that and not oppose it?? ..

 

[sealadaigh]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.


(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

Ok, so clearly nothing means anything unless it follows your logic. Good that you have no power but some words on a forum. The others who are dealing with these issues are like so far past where you find yourself.

And we rush headlong into a Sunni/Shia schism that will make the I/P issue as if it was mere flickering of candles with regards to the deaths.

Already over 100,000 and counting in Syria and I see so little about it.

Enlightenment is the ability to see what is happening in the world and being able to remain calm and logically objective with the realization that the movements of the world are multi-generational.

Do you not feel the pain in Syria? Do you not feel the pain in the territories?

Why do you remove yourself from one and not the other?

An enlightened person can. Regardless if they agree, they accept the enlightened premise.

ah yes, argument by insult and diversion.

all i am asking for is consistancy in argument and i am not getting it, nor have i ever.

as for what is happening in the world is you have a religious state that is the result of european colonialism plopped down smack dab in the middle of almost a billion people who have been trying to shake off the shackles of european colonialism for what, a century, and before that, turkish colonialism (i.e. multigenerational) and shaking off those shackles successfully.

man, you all gotta be cuttin' with everclear that sugary wine your drinkin' every year on passover and chantin' "next year in jeruasalem" to be able to convince yourselves that that hair-brained scheme was gonna work.

as for me, i would be very happy if the USA and other super powers withdrew and let these countries solve it own their own. we sure as hell ain't setting a very good example of how a real democracy works.

 

[Ropey]

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

Ok, so clearly nothing means anything unless it follows your logic. Good that you have no power but some words on a forum. The others who are dealing with these issues are like so far past where you find yourself.

And we rush headlong into a Sunni/Shia schism that will make the I/P issue as if it was mere flickering of candles with regards to the deaths.

Already over 100,000 and counting in Syria and I see so little about it.

Enlightenment is the ability to see what is happening in the world and being able to remain calm and logically objective with the realization that the movements of the world are multi-generational.

Do you not feel the pain in Syria? Do you not feel the pain in the territories?

Why do you remove yourself from one and not the other?

An enlightened person can. Regardless if they agree, they accept the enlightened premise.

ah yes, argument by insult and diversion.

all i am asking for is consistancy in argument and i am not getting it, nor have i ever.

as for what is happening in the world is you have a religious state that is the result of european colonialism plopped down smack dab in the middle of almost a billion people who have been trying to shake off the shackles of european colonialism for what, a century, and before that, turkish colonialism (i.e. multigenerational) and shaking off those shackles successfully.

man, you all gotta be cuttin' with everclear that sugary wine your drinkin' every year on passover and chantin' "next year in jeruasalem" to be able to convince yourselves that that hair-brained scheme was gonna work.

as for me, i would be very happy if the USA and other super powers withdrew and let these countries solve it own their own. we sure as hell ain't setting a very good example of how a real democracy works.

You can not remove yourself from the issue and clearly want me in it personally.

Meh

 

[RoccoR]

reabhloideach, et al,

This is a "big" question!

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

(COMMENT)

Territorial longevity does not establish the right rule. Power, control and influence determines the right; and in modern time, the recognition of customary law. Largely, as a result of the impact of WWI, four major empires collapsed: The Czar, The Kaiser, The The Habsburg Emperor, and The Sultan. The Sultan ruled an Ottoman Empire that, among other huge holdings, controlled all of the Middle East. And in each and every case, rule was maintained by enforcement; not to dissimilar from today. Over time, to reduce conflict and war, treaties were developed. And the "Rule of Law" was crafted, and has been evolving ever since. Oddly enough, Treaty Law really was codified to that way it is today, until the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). This Vienna Convention assembled the general Customary Laws that had formed over time into one codex.

Treaties often determine the sovereign authority over territories as territories change hands and boundaries are delineated.

Breaking a treaty usually results in some sort of penalty; normally in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war. In the case of the Spanish American War, the US (among other things) received The Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Island of Guam as part of the compensation and war reparation. Guam and Puerto Rico are unincorporated territories of the US. The US retained sovereignty over the Philippine Islands as an unincorporated territory until the Treaty of Manila (1946) when it was granted sovereignty as an independent nation.

One could turn the question around and ask, what makes anyone thing that the Arab Palestinian earned any right to rule the undefined territories. They don't even know what the administrative boundaries of Ottoman Palestine were. We know that because the Ottomans told us the region was undefined within the Levant. So who are the Palestinians and how did they come by authority to rule?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

(COMMENT)

There are two important issues here:

• The Balfour Declaration is a Statement of Intent and Concept. It demands nothing of anyone. It shows and intent and concept into the future. There are a half dozen key enforceable documents that were created that set the conditions for the Balfour Declaration to be reality. But the Balfour Declaration is a form of influence. And ultimately, we know it was very influential because today, almost a Century later (94 years), there is the State of Israel, a Jewish National Home (the intent and concept).

• A piece of paper is as strong as the iron and will of those that agree to it. In the case of Palestine, the Treaty of Sevres documents the Ottoman/Turkish Empire relinquished sovereignty over the Middle East (among other vast expanses) and hands that sovereignty over to the Allied Powers, with some provisions attached. Part of those provisions were the (guess), ---> implementation of the Balfour Declaration; a condition of the Treaty.

Today, the UN (the successor organization to the League of Nations) recognizes the sovereignty of the State of Israel. Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel; and have established a historical pattern of behavior by challenging that sovereign status by force of arms. Like the Spanish-American War, eventually the bill comes due. One side or the other, is going to have to pay in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[patrickcaturday]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."


(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

First of all do us all a favor and speak in plain english. Stop trying to impress us all with your ability to invent new phrases to show how intellectual you are, " HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIANS " just because you add a few adjetives ( sp ) to a name does not change the basic nature of the name . I mean it is the old a rose is a rose argument. Get real no one is impressed.
Second,YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY !!!
" ... All civil land grants, title and property were protected ... " That is rediculous on the face of it. In 1948 the Bedouin owned approx. 100% of the Negev they are now down to 2% soon to be 1% The Palestinians controlled East Jerusalen soon they will be expelled, The aparthied wall the settlements, you should be ashamed to write such B.S. And the only plan that you come up with for the palestinians to deal with this land theft is for them to accept it and lie down and be used as a rug. Sorry I am not that enlightened.
Third you should be made aware that some of your basic instincts are leading you to racisist assumptions. You insist that western definitions, such as the definition of property,
should be western ( White ) rather than Eastern ( colored ) a civilization that has existed for thousands of years sort of kiplingesq of you, I mean little brown brother and all that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sunni Man, et al,

I am deadly serious.

No, the Mandate was not "external interference."


(COMMENT)

In fact, for the most part, the Mandate did not change anything in the daily life of the Arab Palestinian.

You can't be serious........??

The 'Mandate' was the seminal event that lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region.

To try and divorce it from the 'cause = effect' paradigm is incredulous to say the least. ..

(COMMENT)

The Arab inspired confrontation with the Jewish Community and the Opposition to the Mandate, greediness and segregationist attitude lead to 60+ years of conflict. That lays right at the feet of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. All the civil land grants, titles and property were protected no matter were it was within the former Mandate. All that was effected was the name in which sovereign powers were assigned. There was no need for the constant uprising, or three wars, or the Intifadas.

What "lead to the 60+ year conflict that has plagued the region" was the inability of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to cooperate and refrain from the use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, they should have just rolled over and let the crooks steal their country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

reabhloideach, et al,

This is a "big" question!

why are we assuming that the ottomans or the british or the european jews or whoever had any rights over this land and this people and isn't the message being sent to the palestinians by this history is that force rules?

(COMMENT)

Territorial longevity does not establish the right rule. Power, control and influence determines the right; and in modern time, the recognition of customary law. Largely, as a result of the impact of WWI, four major empires collapsed: The Czar, The Kaiser, The The Habsburg Emperor, and The Sultan. The Sultan ruled an Ottoman Empire that, among other huge holdings, controlled all of the Middle East. And in each and every case, rule was maintained by enforcement; not to dissimilar from today. Over time, to reduce conflict and war, treaties were developed. And the "Rule of Law" was crafted, and has been evolving ever since. Oddly enough, Treaty Law really was codified to that way it is today, until the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). This Vienna Convention assembled the general Customary Laws that had formed over time into one codex.

Treaties often determine the sovereign authority over territories as territories change hands and boundaries are delineated.

Breaking a treaty usually results in some sort of penalty; normally in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war. In the case of the Spanish American War, the US (among other things) received The Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Island of Guam as part of the compensation and war reparation. Guam and Puerto Rico are unincorporated territories of the US. The US retained sovereignty over the Philippine Islands as an unincorporated territory until the Treaty of Manila (1946) when it was granted sovereignty as an independent nation.

One could turn the question around and ask, what makes anyone thing that the Arab Palestinian earned any right to rule the undefined territories. They don't even know what the administrative boundaries of Ottoman Palestine were. We know that because the Ottomans told us the region was undefined within the Levant. So who are the Palestinians and how did they come by authority to rule?

i do not have any idea why we are assuming even that a balfour letter or any other doccuments carries any weight other than the weight of arms.

(COMMENT)

There are two important issues here:

• The Balfour Declaration is a Statement of Intent and Concept. It demands nothing of anyone. It shows and intent and concept into the future. There are a half dozen key enforceable documents that were created that set the conditions for the Balfour Declaration to be reality. But the Balfour Declaration is a form of influence. And ultimately, we know it was very influential because today, almost a Century later (94 years), there is the State of Israel, a Jewish National Home (the intent and concept).

• A piece of paper is as strong as the iron and will of those that agree to it. In the case of Palestine, the Treaty of Sevres documents the Ottoman/Turkish Empire relinquished sovereignty over the Middle East (among other vast expanses) and hands that sovereignty over to the Allied Powers, with some provisions attached. Part of those provisions were the (guess), ---> implementation of the Balfour Declaration; a condition of the Treaty.

Today, the UN (the successor organization to the League of Nations) recognizes the sovereignty of the State of Israel. Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel; and have established a historical pattern of behavior by challenging that sovereign status by force of arms. Like the Spanish-American War, eventually the bill comes due. One side or the other, is going to have to pay in the form of restitution, reparation, compensation, and (worst case) war.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel;...

Could you explain why that is?

This should be good.

 

[RoccoR]

patrickcaturday, et al,

Thank you for your kind words.

First of all do us all a favor and speak in plain english. Stop trying to impress us all with your ability to invent new phrases to show how intellectual you are, " HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIANS " just because you add a few adjetives ( sp ) to a name does not change the basic nature of the name . I mean it is the old a rose is a rose argument. Get real no one is impressed.

(COMMENT)

Actually, it is not my phrase. It comes from an Intelligence Report Series that makes a distinction between Hostile and non-Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Second,YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY !!!
" ... All civil land grants, title and property were protected ... " That is rediculous on the face of it. In 1948 the Bedouin owned approx. 100% of the Negev they are now down to 2% soon to be 1% The Palestinians controlled East Jerusalen soon they will be expelled, The aparthied wall the settlements, you should be ashamed to write such B.S. And the only plan that you come up with for the palestinians to deal with this land theft is for them to accept it and lie down and be used as a rug. Sorry I am not that enlightened.

(COMMENT)

There are two issues here:

• First, you bring-up the issue of the nomadic and semi-nomadic Arab Bedouin. This is an issue that dates back to 1858 and the requirement by the Turks for landowners to officially record property as a means of regulating land-related matters in the Ottoman Empire. I'll be honest, this issue is beyond my understanding. But what I do know, it didn't (as you suggest) just start with the Israelis. Additionally, the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 (the Arab Invasion) caused about 5/6th of the Bedouin to scatter in all directions (Gaza Strip, Egypt, and Jordan); abandoning the Negev. The current Planning and Building Laws, as well as the law pertaining to Eminent Domain, are not working in favor of the Bedouin. There definitely needs to be some special recognition by the Israel courts to make a landmark ruling.

• Second, there is no real "apartheid" Israel. The security wall separates the potential Palestinian terrorist (Hostile Arab Palestinians) from their potential victims and targets. The claim of "apartheid" is merely an attempt by Palestinians to stir public opinion and gain sympathy for an otherwise criminal cause.

Third you should be made aware that some of your basic instincts are leading you to racisist assumptions. You insist that western definitions, such as the definition of property, should be western ( White ) rather than Eastern ( colored ) a civilization that has existed for thousands of years sort of kiplingesq of you, I mean little brown brother and all that.

(COMMENT)

This is an merely an ad hominem attack, pulling the "race card." The genetic make-up of Jews and Arab are essentially the same; they are defined by their culture, not by race. There is no essential race differential and I never alluded to a difference in race to justify a cause or argument.

There is no difference in definition of like articles between the race. This is a linguistic fallacy. As you say, a rose in the Middle East is still a rose in the America. What makes water in America, makes water in the Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.

sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.

Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims. Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own? I'm really at a loss here. Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan is so much larger than the tiny state of Israel. Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are more qualified to answer this.

Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel;...

Could you explain why that is?

This should be good.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was rejected formally by the Arab Higher Committee on 19 January, 1948, claiming it violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They implied that the Arab Palestinian would oppose any Plan that their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority Jewish Population.

• Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian had some sort of veto power over the UN Partition Plan.
• Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian believed that the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[sealadaigh]

patrickcaturday, et al,

Thank you for your kind words.

First of all do us all a favor and speak in plain english. Stop trying to impress us all with your ability to invent new phrases to show how intellectual you are, " HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIANS " just because you add a few adjetives ( sp ) to a name does not change the basic nature of the name . I mean it is the old a rose is a rose argument. Get real no one is impressed.

(COMMENT)

Actually, it is not my phrase. It comes from an Intelligence Report Series that makes a distinction between Hostile and non-Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Second,YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS I MEAN REALLY !!!
" ... All civil land grants, title and property were protected ... " That is rediculous on the face of it. In 1948 the Bedouin owned approx. 100% of the Negev they are now down to 2% soon to be 1% The Palestinians controlled East Jerusalen soon they will be expelled, The aparthied wall the settlements, you should be ashamed to write such B.S. And the only plan that you come up with for the palestinians to deal with this land theft is for them to accept it and lie down and be used as a rug. Sorry I am not that enlightened.

(COMMENT)

There are two issues here:

• First, you bring-up the issue of the nomadic and semi-nomadic Arab Bedouin. This is an issue that dates back to 1858 and the requirement by the Turks for landowners to officially record property as a means of regulating land-related matters in the Ottoman Empire. I'll be honest, this issue is beyond my understanding. But what I do know, it didn't (as you suggest) just start with the Israelis. Additionally, the Israeli War of Independence in 1948 (the Arab Invasion) caused about 5/6th of the Bedouin to scatter in all directions (Gaza Strip, Egypt, and Jordan); abandoning the Negev. The current Planning and Building Laws, as well as the law pertaining to Eminent Domain, are not working in favor of the Bedouin. There definitely needs to be some special recognition by the Israel courts to make a landmark ruling.

• Second, there is no real "apartheid" Israel. The security wall separates the potential Palestinian terrorist (Hostile Arab Palestinians) from their potential victims and targets. The claim of "apartheid" is merely an attempt by Palestinians to stir public opinion and gain sympathy for an otherwise criminal cause.

Third you should be made aware that some of your basic instincts are leading you to racisist assumptions. You insist that western definitions, such as the definition of property, should be western ( White ) rather than Eastern ( colored ) a civilization that has existed for thousands of years sort of kiplingesq of you, I mean little brown brother and all that.

(COMMENT)

This is an merely an ad hominem attack, pulling the "race card." The genetic make-up of Jews and Arab are essentially the same; they are defined by their culture, not by race. There is no essential race differential and I never alluded to a difference in race to justify a cause or argument.

There is no difference in definition of like articles between the race. This is a linguistic fallacy. As you say, a rose in the Middle East is still a rose in the America. What makes water in America, makes water in the Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R

perhaps you should actually read what he is saying. basically, in my opinion, he is saying that your elevation of western values and concepts over those of other non-european peoples seems to have a racial component. i moved to the word "ethnocentric".

you seem to blindly accept that "white might makes right" without question and conversely, that any objection to this ethnocentric agenda (for lack of a better word) is wrong.

perhaps you would break down the vote of UNGA 181 for us, and explain the diference between the UN in 1947 and now, as well as how the USA has exercised their veto power on UNSC votes regarding israel.

please also when you do this, realise i accept the UN with its many flaws while many of those who would seem to be your compatriots regularly call for throwing that baby out with the bathwater, claiming that the israeli people are under-represented...which they are not. they are over-represented.

i don't think the israeli jews represent a mid-eastern culture, as a bookkeeping note.

apologies to caturday if i substantially mis-interpreted his point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are more qualified to answer this.

Clearly, there are elements within the Arab/Palestinian Community that do not recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel;...

Could you explain why that is?

This should be good.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was rejected formally by the Arab Higher Committee on 19 January, 1948, claiming it violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They implied that the Arab Palestinian would oppose any Plan that their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority Jewish Population.

• Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian had some sort of veto power over the UN Partition Plan.
• Key to the dispute is that the Arab Palestinian believed that the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was their country.

Most Respectfully,
R

They did.

It was.

BTW, the Palestine mandate was not a "place."

 

[sealadaigh]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.


(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.


(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

you seem to link "enlightened" with support of israel and most of the support of osrael comes from european, and particularly western european, nations or those nations or those nations with european ancestry.

you also have been mentioning UNGA resolution 181.

perhaps racist was a poor choice of words and ethnocentric would have been better but when you say "enlightened" thast is a value word and i get the impression that it is being applied to first world countries.

i don't know. you tell me, but i think most people when they here that term, or terms like "advanced" or "progressive" they are generally applying it to or speaking of white nations and thaat is what springs to mind.

also wandering around in your statements is the UN, as though that somehow is connected to the quality of "enlightenment". the UN needs a massive restructuring to better democratically represent the world's peoples.

i could go on, but that will do for now. i think it was a very bad choice of a word on your part.

i remain unenlightened in solidarity with all the other peoples of the world who reject colonialism and its remnants.

here is the question that no one ever seems to answer. using israel as an model, make a rule that you would be willing to apply to all people and express it in general terms...how about...

practitioners of a religion should be allowed to carve out a sovereign state based upon that religion, displacing the inhabitants of the region currently living in that planned future state in order to maintain political control of that state.

hell, liberia made more sense.

ya know, people call me an anti-semite and all, but i actually look for a way to fit an israel into my mindset in such a way that the concept of such a state can be applied to all other peoples of the world and it just ain't happenin'. i am not going to make an exception for jews anymore than i will make an exception for mormons, muslims, satanists, or whatever (and we are talking about the creation of a new state) etc. the way i figure it, it is the people who treat a group of people as especial people based upon their ethnicity, religion, whatever who are the bigoted ones. why must i allow jewish people special privilege that i am unwilling to allow others.

i can see visions the independent republic of moldova dancing in some young goth's eye at this very moment.

Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims. Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own? I'm really at a loss here. Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan is so much larger than the tiny state of Israel. Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.

after all these years i should not have to explain to you that i have always been opposed to foreign colonial powers imposing artificial political boundaries on their former colonies. i am not sure this is the proper forum for discussing the mass migration of hindus from the state known now as pakistan and the mass migration of muslims to the state known now as pakistan.

we get it already. you think all muslims are the same and you hate them.

what a paternalistic attitude..."why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own"...it wasn't the "limpin' lumps o' brick dust" doing the carvin' now, was it?

bless you, massah hoss, someday we kafirs be white inside jus' like you, yer lordship.

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims. Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own? I'm really at a loss here. Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel. Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.

You conveniently overlook some critical facts concerning the partition of India. For example, there was a blood bath on both sides with trains packed full of of dead muslims arriving in Amritsar. Or the fact that Pakistan is not only predominantly Muslim but culturally very very different from the main part of India just as Muslim Bangladesh is culturally different from Pakistan. Maybe it has nothing to do with special "priveledge" but rather, cultural demographics.

Of course...none of this has to do with IP does it?

 

[sealadaigh]

Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims. Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own? I'm really at a loss here. Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel. Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.

You conveniently overlook some critical facts concerning the partition of India. For example, there was a blood bath on both sides with trains packed full of of dead muslims arriving in Amritsar. Or the fact that Pakistan is not only predominantly Muslim but culturally very very different from the main part of India just as Muslim Bangladesh is culturally different from Pakistan. Maybe it has nothing to do with special "priveledge" but rather, cultural demographics.

Of course...none of this has to do with IP does it?

LOL...c'est la naqoyqatsi, mi amiga. nil siochain go saoirse.

 

[Hossfly]

Perhaps some of us see visions of Hindus scratching their heads and wondering why the few remaining Hindus living in Pakistan are no longer safe even though millions of Hindus left that land when a new country was carved out for the Muslims. Tell us, Seal, why was a country carved out of another country to give the Muslims another country of their own? I'm really at a loss here. Perhaps you can explain it to me, especially since Pakistan so much larger than the tiny state of Israel. Perhaps you don't think it was a special privilege given to the Muslims because they wanted to be separate from the Hindus.

You conveniently overlook some critical facts concerning the partition of India. For example, there was a blood bath on both sides with trains packed full of of dead muslims arriving in Amritsar. Or the fact that Pakistan is not only predominantly Muslim but culturally very very different from the main part of India just as Muslim Bangladesh is culturally different from Pakistan. Maybe it has nothing to do with special "priveledge" but rather, cultural demographics.

Of course...none of this has to do with IP does it?

And you convenienty forgot to add the reply by Seal I answered. Of course it has to do with I/P when I'm making comparisons of apples to apples. The boyo makes remarks using other countries and situations to do comparisons, then when I reply in kind, I'm the one who is guilty. Thanks for showing us how the game is played.