A question for all the Anti-Israelis on this board

[Lipush]

I hold that thought as a "security blanket"? Oh, like the way you people hold the thought of a so called "occupation"? "mountain of evidence that say otherwise"? I have seen none of those, because there no such evidence. Scared shitless? No, we're simply more careful, and actually LISTEN when people OPENLY call for our demise.

And when they don't, you don't listen at all.

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

The Arab will to destroy Israel is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

As for the other thing, bring the evidence you have. I will listen.

 

[Lipush]

back to reality:

How DARE Israelis have Israeli flags in Israel! The nerve!

It is only fair when traitors hang the falgs of "Palestine" in Tel Aviv.

But NO Israeli flags in Israeli-Arab cities! Nah uh! not allowed!

 

[P F Tinmore]

I hold that thought as a "security blanket"? Oh, like the way you people hold the thought of a so called "occupation"? "mountain of evidence that say otherwise"? I have seen none of those, because there no such evidence. Scared shitless? No, we're simply more careful, and actually LISTEN when people OPENLY call for our demise.

And when they don't, you don't listen at all.

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

It isn't an "occupation". For territories to be occupied, they must be occupied from a STATE:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

Article 2: ...the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties...."

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

"High Contracting Parties" mean STATES- not the PLO or some mythical place called "Palestine", which was NEVER a state.

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

International Humanitarian Law - Hague Convention IV 1907

And what Berkeley professor of law John Yoo points out is applicaple to the PLO, Hamas, and the other Philistines JUST as it is applicaple to the Taliban:

"…the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction."

Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights - Foreign and Defense Policy - AEI

Nobody is "occupying" anything here.

But we did liberate OUR land.

Interesting.

What state did Egypt occupy between 1949 and 1967?

What state did Jordan occupy between 1949 and 1967?

 

[kvetch]

back to reality:

How DARE Israelis have Israeli flags in Israel! The nerve!

It is only fair when traitors hang the falgs of "Palestine" in Tel Aviv.

But NO Israeli flags in Israeli-Arab cities! Nah uh! not allowed!

well better they do their shitty stuff in football grounds than war grounds

both sides, that is

you always pick one side only

nothing about the pal kid wounded by rubber bullets......you just go for the flag and ignore the actual wounded

god gave you 2 not 1 eyes, you know

can you ever please use both ayunis ??

 

[YKohen]

And when they don't, you don't listen at all.

The "occupation" is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

It isn't an "occupation". For territories to be occupied, they must be occupied from a STATE:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

Article 2: ...the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties...."

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

"High Contracting Parties" mean STATES- not the PLO or some mythical place called "Palestine", which was NEVER a state.

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

International Humanitarian Law - Hague Convention IV 1907

And what Berkeley professor of law John Yoo points out is applicaple to the PLO, Hamas, and the other Philistines JUST as it is applicaple to the Taliban:

"…the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction."

Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights - Foreign and Defense Policy - AEI

Nobody is "occupying" anything here.

But we did liberate OUR land.

Interesting.

What state did Egypt occupy between 1949 and 1967?

What state did Jordan occupy between 1949 and 1967?

They occupied no state. It wasn't an "occupation" then, and it isn't now. It was a land-grab then, and it's a liberation now.

 

[YKohen]

How DARE Israelis have Israeli flags in Israel! The nerve!

It is only fair when traitors hang the falgs of "Palestine" in Tel Aviv.

But NO Israeli flags in Israeli-Arab cities! Nah uh! not allowed!

well better they do their shitty stuff in football grounds than war grounds

both sides, that is

you always pick one side only

nothing about the pal kid wounded by rubber bullets......you just go for the flag and ignore the actual wounded

god gave you 2 not 1 eyes, you know

can you ever please use both ayunis ??

Don't riot and you won't get wounded.

It's really quite simple.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It isn't an "occupation". For territories to be occupied, they must be occupied from a STATE:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

Article 2: ...the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties...."

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

"High Contracting Parties" mean STATES- not the PLO or some mythical place called "Palestine", which was NEVER a state.

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907

SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

International Humanitarian Law - Hague Convention IV 1907

And what Berkeley professor of law John Yoo points out is applicaple to the PLO, Hamas, and the other Philistines JUST as it is applicaple to the Taliban:

"…the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction."

Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights - Foreign and Defense Policy - AEI

Nobody is "occupying" anything here.

But we did liberate OUR land.

Interesting.

What state did Egypt occupy between 1949 and 1967?

What state did Jordan occupy between 1949 and 1967?

They occupied no state. It wasn't an "occupation" then, and it isn't now. It was a land-grab then, and it's a liberation now.

Egypt never annexed Gaza. What, then, was it?

Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but the world would not accept that. If the West Bank did not belong to anybody and was up for grabs, why couldn't Jordon claim it was theirs and call it a day?

 

[irosie91]

C'mon tinnie-----Jordan and more IMPORTANTLY ----the ummah-----did not want the west bank to be absorbed by Jordan-----that would end that wonderful hereditary refugee status you disgustng MOOCHERS so enjoy

 

[P F Tinmore]

C'mon tinnie-----Jordan and more IMPORTANTLY ----the ummah-----did not want the west bank to be absorbed by Jordan-----that would end that wonderful hereditary refugee status you disgustng MOOCHERS so enjoy

Jordan sided with Israel more than with the Arabs. Jordan was promised $3M a year for five years and the West Bank if it did not attack Israeli troops in 1948.

When 80 some Palestinian leaders met in Gaza in 1948 to declare statehood, Jordan would not allow West Bank leaders to attend.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Arab will to destroy Israel is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

That door swings both ways. Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinians. Taking their land; taking their history; taking their lives; taking their dignity and their ability to sustain life.

The occupied are not the aggressors. Israel is not the victim.

As for the other thing, bring the evidence you have. I will listen.

I don't feel like talking now.

 

[irosie91]

crotchboy what "history" was "taken" from the 'palestinians' -----please cite your sources regarding
the "history" of "palestinians"

 

[irosie91]

King Abdullah was a wise man-----there was another wise king
in the wilderness of ummah kingship>>>>
Imam Yahya ibn Muhammad

but his wisdom was obscured out of necessity----so many
people would have hated him for it---especially TINNIE

 

[kvetch]

Of course I get it.

Christianity has a real theological problem with the return of the nation of Israel to its land. Some denominations have ignored it theologically- although it's a huge issue; the elephant in the room.

Others have had to come up with a new theory to try and understand how it could be that everything is unfolding according to Jewish tradition and theology and not according to their own.

But as I mentioned previously, in Judaism, what really counts is actions, and therefore I welcome their support- even while realizing what they believe. Why? Let's see what the Rambam; Maimonides, wrote more than 900 years ago:

Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach's coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'

How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of Mashiach, Torah, and mitzvot. These matters have been spread to the furthermost islands to many stubborn-hearted nations. They discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah, saying: 'These mitzvot were true, but were already negated in the present age and are not applicable for all time.'

Others say: 'Implied in the mitzvot are hidden concepts that can not be understood simply. The Mashiach has already come and revealed those hidden truths.'

When the true Messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err.
​

I already see changes happening- even among non-Evangelicals.

So again, I welcome their acts of support, because we know that ultimately: "... the L-RD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the L-RD be One, and His name one." (Zechariah 14:9)

I wish I had read Rambam; he surely was wonderful

might well be much more educational to read him than it is posting here!!

Thanks for that, at least!!

It's never too late to start learning.

Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest sages ever (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Akiba), didn't start studying torah until he was 40. And Reish Lakish, who also became one of the greatest sages of the Talmud, was a criminal- a robber (and a gladiator) before he began learning torah (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Lakisch). If they could do it, then so can you.

well there's ha tikva for me then

but I am 63 years young!

I only started exploring my jewish roots about 10 years ago
going to schul
listening to a great jewish radio staion in london for 2 years until it sadly folded
and now here with you and all our pals, real or virtual

 

[kvetch]

The Arab will to destroy Israel is not a debatable issue. It is, what it is.

That door swings both ways. Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinians. Taking their land; taking their history; taking their lives; taking their dignity and their ability to sustain life.

The occupied are not the aggressors. Israel is not the victim.

As for the other thing, bring the evidence you have. I will listen.

I don't feel like talking now.

lipushi..........evidence from israeli historian benny morris

Israel historian Benny Morris responds to critics left and right - latimes.com

new article by /about him which is critical of both sides in 1948