Lets Deal With Documented Facts For A Change

[kvetch]

do you consider acquisition through war to be stealing land in all cases? Do you believe settlement of an area which is inhabited by others generally to be stealing?Are population migrations ever not stealing the land of people if those people still reside in the area? What defines the kind of ownership which excludes other people's right to settle? I just want to make sure I understand what makes any settlement here different from the settling of, for example, the US or Australia or much of Europe.

two hundred years or more, for one thing.

other, non-western, cultures have different ideas of property, land ownership, and borders for another.

you are aware, i hope, that during the settlement of those aforementioned areas, slavery and indentured servitude was "in vogue". shall we wind the cclock back on that too.

I'm wondering how you came up with "200" years. It seems rather arbitrary. Is there something about the 200th year which then precludes others' settling which was absent in year 199? How long had there been native Americans on the north American continent before European settlers settled in? What about Aborigines in Australia?

Since you bring up that these are Western cultures and that non-Western cultures have different ideas, which idea should be applied to the mid East? Are there distinctions between the Turkish standard, the European one and the Egyptian one? What about the Greek or Roman one?

If you are against rewinding the clock then are you saying that you want to start from zero right now and accept facts on the ground as they are, or do you simply want to rewind to a particular spot and no further?

it actually makes no difference in israel's case which date or culture you use

because every single day right now they are stealing more and more palestinian land

and will do in the foreseeable future

israel is like dracula...needs pal land like dracula needed blood to stay alive

its a vicious sadistic beast; uniquely so on our planet now

and israel says it is a democracy and even a light unto all nations with "the most moral army in the world"

i.e. it asks to be judged by the very highest standards

 

[MJB12741]

Oh my word. Such a hostile reply. Now listen up Kvetch. I will fight those Zionists until they abandon their entire Zionist aganda of peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions to Palestinians of all people to keep them Israel when all the Paletinians want is to be free from Israel. Shasme on thoswe Zionists in israel.

Want peace from Palestinians? Learn from king Hussein how to achieve it.

Oh now I get it. Those Zionists in Israel were paid to fabricate this documented list of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world. They never happened folks' right eots? Very cleaver those Zionists. You gotta love eots. Heh Heh.

Israelis paid to Troll & Censor internet


Israelis paid to Troll & Censor internet - YouTube

you are a vile self hating anti jew

quit this anti zionist hasbara at once

 

[MJB12741]

Good point. You have a very fine brain. So tell us why Israel offered to return the entire West Bank back to Jordan after the 67war for nothing in return --- and why did Jordan refuse & elect to just sacrifice this piece of land to Israel? Boy thats a reaql real tough question, huh?

OMG! You mean Israel Is Stealing Palestinian Land??? I didn't know that. Amazing what we can learn here on this board. So tell us, when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now stealing?

.....


LOL!!!!!!!!!! Apparently both your historical perspective, as well as an appreciation for fundamental cause-n-effect are hopelessly skewed....the Palestinian population has been under siege for sixty years and you ask why they "launch missiles"??? What did you expect---maybe greeting cards??? Given the fact that Israel is built on stolen soil---there is no "right of self defense"...invariably whatever the ruthless Jews undertake it is called self-defense....you need to do two things: find a history book, and explore the relevant details of international law....definitional terrorism...and cause-n-effect.....sigh

OMG! You mean Israel Is Stealing Palestinian Land??? I didn't know that. Amazing what we can learn here on this board. So tell us, when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now stealing?

over 2,000 years from 70 A.D. till 20th century....the west bank that is

much of the rest was never ever jewish.....that was almost all stolen for the very first time, especially the coast which was NEVER at all very jewish

 

[P F Tinmore]

OMG! You mean Israel Is Stealing Palestinian Land??? I didn't know that. Amazing what we can learn here on this board. So tell us, when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now stealing?

OMG! You mean Israel Is Stealing Palestinian Land??? I didn't know that. Amazing what we can learn here on this board. So tell us, when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now stealing?

over 2,000 years from 70 A.D. till 20th century....the west bank that is

much of the rest was never ever jewish.....that was almost all stolen for the very first time, especially the coast which was NEVER at all very jewish

do you consider acquisition through war to be stealing land in all cases? Do you believe settlement of an area which is inhabited by others generally to be stealing?Are population migrations ever not stealing the land of people if those people still reside in the area? What defines the kind of ownership which excludes other people's right to settle? I just want to make sure I understand what makes any settlement here different from the settling of, for example, the US or Australia or much of Europe.

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

 

[rosends]

OMG! You mean Israel Is Stealing Palestinian Land??? I didn't know that. Amazing what we can learn here on this board. So tell us, when did Israel's ancient land become this Palestinian land that Israel is now stealing?

over 2,000 years from 70 A.D. till 20th century....the west bank that is

much of the rest was never ever jewish.....that was almost all stolen for the very first time, especially the coast which was NEVER at all very jewish

do you consider acquisition through war to be stealing land in all cases? Do you believe settlement of an area which is inhabited by others generally to be stealing?Are population migrations ever not stealing the land of people if those people still reside in the area? What defines the kind of ownership which excludes other people's right to settle? I just want to make sure I understand what makes any settlement here different from the settling of, for example, the US or Australia or much of Europe.

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

 

[irosie91]

"It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force."
<<<<

who ever wrote the filth above is the answer to the world's problems the entity actually believes that aquisition of land by murder, rape and pillage was "LEGAL" from the year 700AD to 1912 AD after that all bets were off-----and the people who RAMPAGED THE MOST----won Southern sudan-----populated by native persons and people subsaharans for more than 2000 years -----STILL BELONGS to khartoum------invaders from arabia about 1200 years ago. The armenian genocide was legal based on OWNERSHIP by conquest

 

[irosie91]

Bottom line---the tinnie principle------acquisition of land by invasion, rape, pillage, murder and oppression was LEGAL from 700 AD until -----1800 AD ------at that point "borders" became permanent and immutable-------and all other land acquisitions if------challenged for any reason by the 700 AD thru 1800 invading murderers, rapists, pillagers and exploiters BECOMES ILLEGAL

 

[P F Tinmore]

do you consider acquisition through war to be stealing land in all cases? Do you believe settlement of an area which is inhabited by others generally to be stealing?Are population migrations ever not stealing the land of people if those people still reside in the area? What defines the kind of ownership which excludes other people's right to settle? I just want to make sure I understand what makes any settlement here different from the settling of, for example, the US or Australia or much of Europe.

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

There was no partition in 1947. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council and was never implemented. No land was transferred. No borders were changed. No states were created.

 

[toastman]

"It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force."
<<<<

who ever wrote the filth above is the answer to the world's problems the entity actually believes that aquisition of land by murder, rape and pillage was "LEGAL" from the year 700AD to 1912 AD after that all bets were off-----and the people who RAMPAGED THE MOST----won Southern sudan-----populated by native persons and people subsaharans for more than 2000 years -----STILL BELONGS to khartoum------invaders from arabia about 1200 years ago. The armenian genocide was legal based on OWNERSHIP by conquest

....excsue me Madam, I don't wish to intrude on your febrile, inflated, incoherent diatribe---but doesn't modern Israel virtually confirm the principle of "ownership by conquest"---or bloodthirsty piracy---if you prefer??? For all the compensational rhetoric pertaining to some far-fetched putative right of reclamation, the brazen Euro-scum who illegally seized historic Palestine are in no position to even ruminate about such notions as legality....you're a pack of scurrilous mobsters invoking your shrill religious pretentions of morality.....if you are the "chosen" then I submit that the devil himself is doing the choosing....

More jibberish from another anti semitic monkey

You can spew all the nonsense you want, but Israel is here to stay. Arabs are crybabies, they wage war, are unable to defeat a small country with a fraction of the military that they have, they LOSE LAND in the process, and now want it back lol.

 

[rosends]

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

There was no partition in 1947. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council and was never implemented. No land was transferred. No borders were changed. No states were created.

it was a simple yes or no question. I beg you not to question my premise [we can pick another day to discuss whether a plan voted on and which passed but not implemented fully is considered "rejected"] -- let's assume there was a partition that was not rejected. Would the country, created based on its religion, and forcing the displacement of many have the right to exist today based on the actions of the colonially ruling country?

 

[Hossfly]

It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. Conquest by war before that time was not illegal but it is now. Israel cannot make legal claim to any land "won in a war."

Immigration is one thing where people move in and become citizens. The people have the right to decide immigration policy.

Settlements is another where people move in for the purpose of annexing land to an occupying power. It is illegal for an occupying power to annex land that it occupies.

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

There was no partition in 1947. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council and was never implemented. No land was transferred. No borders were changed. No states were created.

Want some whine with that cheese, duffer?

 

[Hossfly]

"It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force."
<<<<

who ever wrote the filth above is the answer to the world's problems the entity actually believes that aquisition of land by murder, rape and pillage was "LEGAL" from the year 700AD to 1912 AD after that all bets were off-----and the people who RAMPAGED THE MOST----won Southern sudan-----populated by native persons and people subsaharans for more than 2000 years -----STILL BELONGS to khartoum------invaders from arabia about 1200 years ago. The armenian genocide was legal based on OWNERSHIP by conquest

....excsue me Madam, I don't wish to intrude on your febrile, inflated, incoherent diatribe---but doesn't modern Israel virtually confirm the principle of "ownership by conquest"---or bloodthirsty piracy---if you prefer??? For all the compensational rhetoric pertaining to some far-fetched putative right of reclamation, the brazen Euro-scum who illegally seized historic Palestine are in no position to even ruminate about such notions as legality....you're a pack of scurrilous mobsters invoking your shrill religious pretentions of morality.....if you are the "chosen" then I submit that the devil himself is doing the choosing....

Same old, same old stuff from old Skitt here, only this time he is throwing in the Devil. And here I thought that Skitt was Satan's bestest friend in the whole wide world and that Skitt's bestest friend was even having a set of horns especially made for him. Meanwhile, of course, old Skit even on a Middle East Discussion Board never took the opportunity to condemn the scum who are murdering innocent people in several places on this planet. All of his rhetoric is mainly to bash the Jews and Israel, and in his mind the Muslims are never ever doing any wrong no matter how many people they kill.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I had always learned that acquiring land through war had been ruled "illegal" in offensive, not defensive wars. this should mean that if there is any arab aggression towards israel, it cannot succeed in acquiring land partitioned to israel. but we can forget about that. I'll also skip over the legal distinction between occupied and disputed territory. I have a separate question:

in 1947, through a partition, a country was created on the basis of religion. People were displaced because of it and thousands of refugees had to be absorbed. it was not created by war, but its continued history has involved at least 4 wars waging muslims against others. do you believe that the country created through partition does not have the right to exist and defend itself today?

There was no partition in 1947. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council and was never implemented. No land was transferred. No borders were changed. No states were created.

it was a simple yes or no question. I beg you not to question my premise [we can pick another day to discuss whether a plan voted on and which passed but not implemented fully is considered "rejected"] -- let's assume there was a partition that was not rejected. Would the country, created based on its religion, and forcing the displacement of many have the right to exist today based on the actions of the colonially ruling country?

I am not sure that I understand what you are asking.

 

[irosie91]

selective WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY for the legality or rape, pillage and murder as a "LEGAL" means toward land ownership

 

[YKohen]

***Their*** land?

Their land is elsewhere; the other 99.9% of the Middle East. They need to stop being greedy and violent and be happy with what is theirs.

excellent projection, there, mr. settler

applies to you and your settlers 150%

Tiny Israel is 1/10th of 1% of the Middle East. The Arabs occupy 99.9%, and for some, even that isn't enough.

Lucky for them, most of our neighbors have decided to make do with what is theirs.

 

[eots]

Oh now I get it. Those Zionists in Israel were paid to fabricate this documented list of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world. They never happened folks' right eots? Very cleaver those Zionists. You gotta love eots. Heh Heh.

Israelis paid to Troll & Censor internet


Israelis paid to Troll & Censor internet - YouTube

you are a vile self hating anti jew

quit this anti zionist hasbara at once

I never said a word I let the young lady speak for herself...

 

[SAYIT]

"It was only about a hundred years ago or so that it became illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force."
<<<<

who ever wrote the filth above is the answer to the world's problems the entity actually believes that aquisition of land by murder, rape and pillage was "LEGAL" from the year 700AD to 1912 AD after that all bets were off-----and the people who RAMPAGED THE MOST----won Southern sudan-----populated by native persons and people subsaharans for more than 2000 years -----STILL BELONGS to khartoum------invaders from arabia about 1200 years ago. The armenian genocide was legal based on OWNERSHIP by conquest

....excsue me Madam, I don't wish to intrude on your febrile, inflated, incoherent diatribe---but doesn't modern Israel virtually confirm the principle of "ownership by conquest"---or bloodthirsty piracy---if you prefer??? For all the compensational rhetoric pertaining to some far-fetched putative right of reclamation, the brazen Euro-scum who illegally seized historic Palestine are in no position to even ruminate about such notions as legality....you're a pack of scurrilous mobsters invoking your shrill religious pretentions of morality.....if you are the "chosen" then I submit that the devil himself is doing the choosing....

Same old, same old stuff from old Skitt here, only this time he is throwing in the Devil. And here I thought that Skitt was Satan's bestest friend in the whole wide world...

Not friends ... just a big fan.

 

[sealadaigh]

do you consider acquisition through war to be stealing land in all cases? Do you believe settlement of an area which is inhabited by others generally to be stealing?Are population migrations ever not stealing the land of people if those people still reside in the area? What defines the kind of ownership which excludes other people's right to settle? I just want to make sure I understand what makes any settlement here different from the settling of, for example, the US or Australia or much of Europe.

two hundred years or more, for one thing.

other, non-western, cultures have different ideas of property, land ownership, and borders for another.

you are aware, i hope, that during the settlement of those aforementioned areas, slavery and indentured servitude was "in vogue". shall we wind the cclock back on that too.

I'm wondering how you came up with "200" years. It seems rather arbitrary. Is there something about the 200th year which then precludes others' settling which was absent in year 199? How long had there been native Americans on the north American continent before European settlers settled in? What about Aborigines in Australia?

Since you bring up that these are Western cultures and that non-Western cultures have different ideas, which idea should be applied to the mid East? Are there distinctions between the Turkish standard, the European one and the Egyptian one? What about the Greek or Roman one?

If you are against rewinding the clock then are you saying that you want to start from zero right now and accept facts on the ground as they are, or do you simply want to rewind to a particular spot and no further?

it is arbitrary. i was trying to get as close to 1948 and still consider your scenario about america and australia.

personally, i would say the difference between the colinisations you mention and israel was 1941.

in 1941 there were about half a million jews in british mandate of palestine, most of the immigrants, and many of those immigrants were illegal immigrants.

i suppose i could have arbitrarily said 1917.

it has been my experience that when people bring up the colonisation o the americas or australia or whatever, they do it to somehow morally justify the israeli state.

i let the culture of the indigenous people or peoples hold. they determoine their own values and those values need to be respected. i am not real keen on foreign rule.

maybe i don't understand your point about colonisation?

some wrongs can't be undone. some can.

are you a lubavitcher?

 

[sealadaigh]

***Their*** land?

Their land is elsewhere; the other 99.9% of the Middle East. They need to stop being greedy and violent and be happy with what is theirs.

excellent projection, there, mr. settler

applies to you and your settlers 150%

Tiny Israel is 1/10th of 1% of the Middle East. The Arabs occupy 99.9%, and for some, even that isn't enough.

Lucky for them, most of our neighbors have decided to make do with what is theirs.

so what exactly? if you have $100.00 in yoiur wallet and a jew in manhattan has a stock portfolio worth $1,000,000,000.00 do you think if i snatch your c note that my defense that joe schmuck over there has bookoo ducats is gonna hold up?

by the way, i have this friend visiting israel in a couple of months. would you mind e-mailing me your address so he can crash for a couple of weeks. i am sure you have plenty of room and he doesn't take up much.

 

[YKohen]

excellent projection, there, mr. settler

applies to you and your settlers 150%

Tiny Israel is 1/10th of 1% of the Middle East. The Arabs occupy 99.9%, and for some, even that isn't enough.

Lucky for them, most of our neighbors have decided to make do with what is theirs.

so what exactly? if you have $100.00 in yoiur wallet and a jew in manhattan has a stock portfolio worth $1,000,000,000.00 do you think if i snatch your c note that my defense that joe schmuck over there has bookoo ducats is gonna hold up?

by the way, i have this friend visiting israel in a couple of months. would you mind e-mailing me your address so he can crash for a couple of weeks. i am sure you have plenty of room and he doesn't take up much.

The would-have-been "Palestinians" didn't have jack. Nothing.

And even though they were given the chance- many chances, they still chose to have jack.

Oh well. That's their choice.