Should Israel have been created?

[RoccoR]

loinboy, et al,

Now here is an issue.

The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine. But unfortunately, that's not what happened.

(COMMENT)

Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:

• What were the "rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine?"

In discussing this, one has to ask, what is the specifics of the violation in rights? THEN! What is the scope and nature of the restitution and reparations necessary to make it right?

When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty." All of which are great ideals. But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals. They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals. Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.

Are they not all products of the very same system. Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?

Exactly what is that something? And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

 

[RoccoR]

editec, et al,

The question

Should Israel have been created?

leads me to ask the same question about many nations that exist now that are the direct or indirect result of the MANDATE system following WWI.

(ANSWER)

• Egypt: Independence 28 February 1922
  
  
  • First from UK protectorate status;
  • Second from the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956;
  
  
• Lebanon:
  
  After the fighting ended in Lebanon, General Charles de Gaulle visited the area. Under various political pressures from both inside and outside Lebanon, de Gaulle decided to recognize the independence of Lebanon. On November 26, 1941 General Georges Catroux announced that Lebanon would become independent under the authority of the Free French government. Elections were held in 1943 and on November 8, 1943 the new Lebanese government unilaterally abolished the mandate. The French reacted by throwing the new government into prison. In the face of international pressure, the French released the government officials on November 22, 1943 and accepted the independence of Lebanon.​
• Syria:
  
  Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but it wasn't until 1 January 1944 that it was recognised as an independent republic. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that had been formed during the mandate.​
• Jordan:
  
  With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations created the French Mandate of Syria and British Mandate Palestine. Approximately 90% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". In 1921, the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future King Abdullah I of Jordan, of the Hashemite family. Abdullah I continued to rule until a Palestinian Arab assassinated him in 1951 on the steps of the Mosque of Omar. At first he ruled "Transjordan", under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nations approve an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following this approval, the Jordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.​
• Iraq:
  
  At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad, and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.
  
  For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.
  
  Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi of Iraq ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939.​
• Kuwait:
  
  After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was financially crippled and the invading British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikdom under British protectorate".
  
  On June 19, 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the then emir of Kuwait, Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah.​
  SOURCE: CIA World Factbook - The best country factbook available online | Find data about any contry's history, geography, politics, people, government, culture, economy and many more!

Obviously history cannot answer questions like "Should have...?" because such asking questions are above history's paygrade.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well, it is alternative history time in the Twilight Zone.

Real history does not make MORAL judgements. Such judgements about the past are always left to the living. All history can do is try to decribe the event and intuit the motives of the actors.

(COMMENT)

May be! But all history has some bias to it.

I believe that Balfour guaranteed Zionists the right to return to the state of Palestine because England was strapped for money during WWI and RothChild's influence over the banking community of England, the USA and much of Europe was so vast.

Should Balfour have done that?

Depends on whether or not you think ENGLAND would have survived without enough credit to conduct the First World War.

(COMMENT)

Another one of our contributors and friend (georgephillip) has mentioned this Rothschild Conspiracy on several occasions. I don't completely understand it all, and thus am a little confused with the intrigue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world. He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews. Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel. Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

There is little question, that as an Occupation Force, the Israelis are found woefully wanting. They are not the worst in history (by a long shot), but not the best by the same margin.

...

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

(COMMENT)

By some measure, I tend to think that the 1967 War (now nearly a half century ago) was the turning point. There was a possibility then, that the Israelis could have turned the insurgency around by adopting a benevolent strategy with the Palestinians. But that was not to be the case.

We will never know what could have been.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world. He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews. Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel. Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.

You keep thinking that its a Jewish thing that motivates my posting quite often on these boards... Certainly after posting and seeing the untruthfulness by Jewish, and Right Wing Zionist posters and their Clannish behavior is revealing of their motivations...but I do understand their collective fears by their previous treatment in the war since the beginning of the Diaspora...Individually, I never met a Jew I disliked, and my relationship today with Jews is very good.

I guess I'm a Humanist at heart which inflates the emotion from injustice to people overwhelms me.

Also I am a student of political science and often post on issues that affect America directly. The Middle East is where the action is fluid and the affect is great on America...Yes Jewish power is great in America, and I don't blame them for their collective influence, but America has become an Oligarchy, and Democracy has been subjugated to campaign funds and influence and Democracy is dying.

We need Campaign Finance reform!

 

[Hossfly]

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world. He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews. Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel. Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.

You keep thinking that its a Jewish thing that motivates my posting quite often on these boards... Certainly after posting and seeing the untruthfulness by Jewish, and Right Wing Zionist posters and their Clannish behavior is revealing of their motivations...but I do understand their collective fears by their previous treatment in the war since the beginning of the Diaspora...Individually, I never met a Jew I disliked, and my relationship today with Jews is very good.

I guess I'm a Humanist at heart which inflates the emotion from injustice to people overwhelms me.

Also I am a student of political science and often posts on issues that affect America directly. The Middle East is where the action is fluid and the affect is great on America...Yes Jewish power is great in America, and I don't blame them for their collective influence, but America has become an Oligarchy, and Democracy has been subjugated to campaign funds and influence and Democracy is dying.

We need Campaign Finance re-form!

Good for you. I would give you a pos rep but your little thumby thingies are gone.

 

[Billo_Really]

loinboy, et al,

Now here is an issue.

The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine. But unfortunately, that's not what happened.

(COMMENT)

Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:

• What were the "rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine?"

In discussing this, one has to ask, what is the specifics of the violation in rights? THEN! What is the scope and nature of the restitution and reparations necessary to make it right?

When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty." All of which are great ideals. But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals. They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals. Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.

Are they not all products of the very same system. Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?

Exactly what is that something? And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot move into a neighborhood and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm trying to say that Sherri didn't even contradict what Rocco said.

I read all the relevent posts and I think she did.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually, the UN General Assembly, doesn't quite see it that way.

In my application example of my little quarter acre, you are quite right, there is a question of authority. However, in the case of Palestine, there is an authority and a source of recognition.

UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding.

Myth #2 – The United Nations created Israel.

The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.

As a result, a U.N. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

The U.N. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOP’s in its Resolution 181. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. All such claims are absolutely false.

Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a recommendation. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not.

Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). And, furthermore, the U.N. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway.

I hope this clears up any lingering confusion over 181.

I like you RoccoR, you're a good guy!

We just disagree...

 

[irosie91]

loinboy, et al,

Now here is an issue.

The Balfour decision allowed for the creation of a jewish state with the caveat that it must be done without infringing on the rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine. But unfortunately, that's not what happened.

(COMMENT)

Given the history, the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Future Government of Palestine, the authority of the UN Mandate System/Trustee Council, and the actions of the General Assembly itself, the question becomes:

• What were the "rights of the indigenous non-jewish population of Palestine?"

In discussing this, one has to ask, what is the specifics of the violation in rights? THEN! What is the scope and nature of the restitution and reparations necessary to make it right?

When I listen to the complaints, they speak of "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty." All of which are great ideals. But in reality, I don't see that they understand the tangible application of these ideals. They can neither describe what these ideals are; or, show which regional nations have these ideals in hand --- and have actually used these ideals. Nor can they explain how the adjacent regional nations have indigenous populations that benefited from the exercise of their ideals, while the Palestinians have been deprived of a similar exercise.

Are they not all products of the very same system. Why is it that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt were all protectorates or mandates, all administered the same way as Palestine, yet the Palestinians were deprived of something that the others were not?

Exactly what is that something? And please don't use circular logic by restating the same tired old phrases like "International Law, the Rights of Self-Determination, and Sovereignty;" unless you can cite how it differs from Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

Mr R----my impression of the insertion of PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ALL----in
the Balfour Declaration -----was something like a British Formalism----

as in "be good chaps-----time for tea"

in fact none of the chaps in the BRITISH EMPIRE breakup---were
"good" -----but lots of countries got created

 

[RoccoR]

lionboy, et al,

It is true, GA Resoultion 181(II)(29 Nov 47) is a non-binding agreement, but it is clear to me now, that you (and whoever wrote the your citation below) does not understand the difference between a Binding Resolution and a non-Binding Resolution.

Actually, the UN General Assembly, doesn't quite see it that way.

In my application example of my little quarter acre, you are quite right, there is a question of authority. However, in the case of Palestine, there is an authority and a source of recognition.

UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding.

Myth #2 – The United Nations created Israel.

The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.

As a result, a U.N. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

The U.N. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOP’s in its Resolution 181. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. All such claims are absolutely false.

Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a recommendation. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not.

Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). And, furthermore, the U.N. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway.

I hope this clears up any lingering confusion over 181.

I like you RoccoR, you're a good guy!

(COMMENT)

A "Binding Resolution" is a "decree" or a "command." The parties in a "Binding" Resolution are enjoined to fulfill the requirements of the Resolution - there is no option to accept or reject.

A GA Resolution of the type GA 181(II) represents is an "Offer and Acceptance." It is an agreement between one or more parties (on one side) and the General Assembly (on the other side). Such a resolution does not command a member or other to do something, but allows them to do something within the scope of the resolution.

While this litigation argument you cited by has a point, the reality is much different. If the GA Resolution 181(II) was not in play, it would not have been accepted by the GA when Israel used it to apply for its application for membership; which it did.

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.​

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949

We just disagree...

Yes, it would seem so!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

It is true, GA Resoultion 181(II)(29 Nov 47) is a non-binding agreement, but it is clear to me now, that you (and whoever wrote the your citation below) does not understand the difference between a Binding Resolution and a non-Binding Resolution.

That's not the impression I got.

A GA Resolution of the type GA 181(II) represents is an "Offer and Acceptance." It is an agreement between one or more parties (on one side) and the General Assembly (on the other side). Such a resolution does not command a member or other to do something, but allows them to do something within the scope of the resolution.

181 was nothing more than a recommendation.

But since you brought up the scope of the resolution, why did Israel choose to disregard this portion of 181?

Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights

Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.

No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.

Or do you think it's okay to pick and choose the parts of 181 you plan to follow?

 

[Hossfly]

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world. He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews. Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel. Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.

You keep thinking that its a Jewish thing that motivates my posting quite often on these boards... Certainly after posting and seeing the untruthfulness by Jewish, and Right Wing Zionist posters and their Clannish behavior is revealing of their motivations...but I do understand their collective fears by their previous treatment in the war since the beginning of the Diaspora...Individually, I never met a Jew I disliked, and my relationship today with Jews is very good.

I guess I'm a Humanist at heart which inflates the emotion from injustice to people overwhelms me.

Also I am a student of political science and often post on issues that affect America directly. The Middle East is where the action is fluid and the affect is great on America...Yes Jewish power is great in America, and I don't blame them for their collective influence, but America has become an Oligarchy, and Democracy has been subjugated to campaign funds and influence and Democracy is dying.

We need Campaign Finance reform!

Regardless of what you say, Phillip, there are many posters who can pick up from what you post that it is a Jewish thing, and it is like you are trying to get the readers to hate the Jews and the Israelis because in your narrow mind they are the cause of all the problems in the world today. Why not tell us, Phillip, when you were posting on a Middle East discussion forum, you only brought up your stuff against the Jews and Israel (the same things you have dragged over to this forum), posting your silly poems (even incorporating the names of Jewish posters who were no longer posting for some time (because they had the audacity to disagree with you), and toward the end of that board fighting with a Jewish policewoman constantly?

 

[RoccoR]

lionboy, et al,

181 was nothing more than a recommendation.

(COMMENT)

Call it what you will. It is Activated by either party.

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

But since you brought up the scope of the resolution, why did Israel choose to disregard this portion of 181?

Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights

Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.

No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.

Or do you think it's okay to pick and choose the parts of 181 you plan to follow?

(COMMENT)

I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.

Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security. Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state. Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.

Occupation law may vary.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.

Have you heard of the Nakba Law?

Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security. Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state. Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.

They are not resisting the state of Israel, they are resisting the occupation by Israel.

And people taking no part in hostilities, should not be treated as though they are.

Do you (or do you not) agree, that no one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?

Occupation law may vary.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

You don't wanna really go there, do you?

Because there's a lot of "occupational law" that Israel doesn't abide by.

One of which is that an occupational force shall not transfer a portion of its population into an area under occupation.

 

[MHunterB]

When I went trough undergraduate school, my readings about Israel were colored by references to the Kibbutz life style of peaceful Jewish communities…there were no references to wars… The Nazi atrocities were also part of that curriculum.

When the 67 War came, we were all cheering as Israel kicked butt on Arab Armies who wanted to destroy the Tiny Jewish State. These were the ideas fed to us by the mass media…

Yes, like many others creating a safe haven for the peaceful slaughtered Jews was a no-brainer.

But with 20/20 hindsight of today, I know that the Victims have become the oppressors, and their war-like agenda was born in its birth. The re-conquest of Eretz Israel was always in the plan. Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. Just look at World popularity polls Israel is behind Iran, yet in the USA Israel is tops.

They have turned our world up-side down.

Evidently Phillip is not keeping track of what is going on in the rest of the world. He is just consumed with Israel because it involves the Jews. Don't forget, Phillip, it is just your opinion that Americans have been duped by the Zionists since you have not spoken to all Americans to see how they feel. Maybe if you told them your opinion, they would think you are a crackpot.

You keep thinking that its a Jewish thing that motivates my posting quite often on these boards... Certainly after posting and seeing the untruthfulness by Jewish, and Right Wing Zionist posters and their Clannish behavior is revealing of their motivations...but I do understand their collective fears by their previous treatment in the war since the beginning of the Diaspora...Individually, I never met a Jew I disliked, and my relationship today with Jews is very good.

I guess I'm a Humanist at heart which inflates the emotion from injustice to people overwhelms me.

Also I am a student of political science and often post on issues that affect America directly. The Middle East is where the action is fluid and the affect is great on America...Yes Jewish power is great in America, and I don't blame them for their collective influence, but America has become an Oligarchy, and Democracy has been subjugated to campaign funds and influence and Democracy is dying.

We need Campaign Finance reform!

I just find it extremely difficult to believe that you've never mentioned "Americans have been duped by the American/Israeli Zionists who control the dissemination of communication in America created a false image. " around any of the Jews with whom you presume to have a ' very good relationship'.

When someone starts with the above canard ('Zionist control of the media'), that is someone who has accepted anti-Jewish propaganda as 'fact'.... and it's hardly ever worth even trying to pry open their minds on the topic.

I'm guessing that a) the ONLY Jews you know all happen to be 'ultra-left-wing' and/or b) you've never mentioned this 'Jewish media control' or the 'clannishness' in front of them and/or 3) you are distorting, misrepresenting, or completely ignorant of those Jews' actual feelings towards you.

 

[MHunterB]

Why don't you QUOTE the 'Nakba Law' , Loinie - since you brought it up?
And note that it was passed WHEN?

 

[Billo_Really]

Why don't you QUOTE the 'Nakba Law' , Loinie - since you brought it up?
And note that it was passed WHEN?

The Nakba Law discriminates against Palestinian's.

Chilling effect of the Nakba Law on Israel's human rights

"Nakba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic ), is a term used to describe the suffering of Palestinians, including the 700,000 who lost their homes, in the war that led to the establishment of the State of Israel. The short decision, just 19 pages, not only failed to address arguments that the Nakba Law infringes on the Palestinian Arab minority's right to free speech and equality with regard to its historical memory; it also refrained from dealing with the important argument raised by the petitioners: the chilling effect of the law on carrying out various activities for fear of financial sanctions.

It was passed on March 23, 2011.

On 23 March 2011, the Knesset approved, by a vote of 37 to 25, a change to the budget, giving the Israeli Finance Minister the discretion to reduce government funding to any non-governmental organization (NGO) that organizes Nakba commemoration events.

Next question?

 

[RoccoR]

lionboy, et al,

I was totally unaware that Israeli Citizens (of any kind) were treated differently.

Have you heard of the Nakba Law?

(COMMENT)

In passing. I really don't know how it is being applied. One of my friends still active in the region mentioned that it is applicable to anyone holding an anti-Jewish State event. This would include "self-hating Jews" as well. So it is not really a discriminatory law (that I am aware of). But it is a domestic law.

Palestinians are generally treated according to the potential security threat they represent to peace and security. Palestinians, like those in this discussion group, claim it is a right to bear arms against the Occupation Force and Israel, as an illegal state. Therefore, under the reasonable man assumption, Palestinians should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise.

They are not resisting the state of Israel, they are resisting the occupation by Israel.

(COMMENT)

That still poses a threat.

And people taking no part in hostilities, should not be treated as though they are.

(COMMENT)

That is correct. They should not be treated differently. But as a potential threat, they should be treated all the same.

Do you (or do you not) agree, that no one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit?

(COMMENT)

I agree, if they do not commit a crime, they should not be punished. But to screen everyone that is a potential threat.

It would be irresponsible, given the threats posed, the attacks made, and the stated goals cited by the Palestinian people and government (all a clear pattern of past terrorist behavior), to allow such a potential threat to go unchallenged; especially if a citizen was subsequently killed or injured as a result of reduced security measures. Such a reduction in security countermeasures, in order to ease the difficulties and hardships on the population shielding the threat, and supporting the government with Chartered threats, would constitute gross negligence.

Occupation law may vary.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

You don't wanna really go there, do you?

Because there's a lot of "occupational law" that Israel doesn't abide by.

One of which is that an occupational force shall not transfer a portion of its population into an area under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Oh, you already know that I have conceded that there is prima facie evidence that Israel is in violation of Article 49 of the GCIV and Article 8, Para 2b(viii), Rome Statues. I agree on the basic facts.

Most Respectfully,
R